The interview data about complaints indicate that the main topics of SEND complaints were around delays in statutory timescales or in placing a child/young person in a school; placement decisions, especially decisions made about secondary school placements for those with a statement or EHC plan; school transport decisions in relation to placements of those with a statement or plan, and failures in communication to the parent.
175
Education complaints: schools
In our sample of 40 parents who had made complaints, SEND complaints against schools fell into two categories: (i) incidents involving the child and (ii) failure to provide for SEND. Examples of both categories are given in Figure 59.
Figure 59: Examples of complaints against schools
(1) Incidents involving the child
Bullying by a staff member of a child with severe and complex needs "Wanton unkindness - cruelty, real cruelty and bullying' by staff
“My child was bullied to the point of being physically tortured and hit on a daily basis [and nothing was done about it]"
Non-accidental injury of child by head teacher
Head teacher's conduct and mismanagement of child’s SEND
Child left by himself in a room; child manhandled and bruised by untrained staff (2) Failure to provide for SEND
Not providing support set out in statement of SEN Not providing support set out in EHC plan
Refusal to buy in educational psychologist to do an assessment (on grounds that the school had used up its credits)
Failure to provide for child’s SEND
Failing to provide an out of school tutor in a timely manner
Source: Parent interviews, 2016-17
In our sample, in only four cases were school complaint matters resolved to the parents’ satisfaction. In some cases, the failure to resolve complaints about incidents involving a child led to parents removing such children from the respective schools. Other
interviewees also reported that schools tended to be less responsive to complaints than LAs. For example, one reported that “Schools tend not to be very good at responding to complaints, and that’s drawing also on my experience as a governor as well” (C4), while others said school complaints processes were “less effective than LA processes” and were “confusing for parents” because the processes varied depending on the type of school attended by the child or young person.
176
Education complaints: LA SEND team
Complaints against how the LAcarried out its statutory SEND duties could be grouped in to four categories: delays in processes, failure to provide statutory provision,
behaviour or competence of staff member and failure to follow statutory processes (Figure 60).
Figure 60: Examples of complaints against LA SEND teams
(i) Delays in processes Delays in EHC needs assessment process
Delays in issuing final EHC plan Delays in setting up annual reviews
(ii) Failure to provide statutory provision
Speech and language therapy, as set out in statement or EHC plan Full-time education for a child with EHC plan
(iii) Behaviour or competence of staff member/s Paperwork sent to wrong school, paperwork lost
Not listening to and/or not communicating with parents Communicating in a manner perceived as rude or insensitive
(iv) Failure to follow statutory process Not following a Tribunal Order
Not amending a statement/EHC plan after annual review Not following EHC needs assessment process
Source: Parent interviews, 2016-17
How complaints against LA SEND teams were resolved varied. For example, some were resolved at the first stage by such actions as apologising and explaining what changes had been made as a result of the complaint, or putting right the problem complained about. For example, in response to a complaint about delays in receiving a draft EHC plan, one parent reported that the SEN consultant came to the house and was hugely apologetic and wrote the draft within a day. Conversely, other Stage 1 complaints were ignored or responded to in a manner that left the parent feeling “batted away” or “fobbed off”. In our sample, this led to escalation to further stages. These further stages could either resolve the issues or could lead to further issues arising. For example, in one case we were told that the Stage 3 independent investigator upheld the parents’ complaint and included in the report the statement that it was, "noticeable and chilling how little empathy all staff had for the family". The SEND manager was told to
177
apologise and pay damages to the family but neither happened and so the complaint went to the LGO. The LGO upheld it.
In one case reported to us, there seemed to be a deliberate policy of using complaints as a gateway to provision – a complaint about lack of speech and language therapy provision was met by an admission by the SEN Manager that, only when a formal complaint was received, was this scarce provision put in place.
Social Care complaints
The small number of complaints made to social care by the parents in our sample related to assessments(young person should have been assessed as a child, not as an adult; social care refused to do a Child in Need assessment); lack of respite care; and disagreements over social care plans for the child or young person (e.g. a move to assisted living, a move to a different city, a change to daily transport
arrangements).
In these few cases, resolution came not from responses to the social care complaints processes but through other interventions. These included, for example, by local MPs becoming involved or simply by, as Parent 29 put it, the arrival of a social worker “who knew how to do her job properly”.
Complaints handled by the LGO (Education and/or Social Care)
Of those in our parent sample who took complaints to the LGO, threereported that
their LA had not implemented the LGO recommendations at time of interview. In two of these cases, the parents reported being told that, in order for the LGO to deal with that, they would have to register a new complaint with the LGO. Both gave up at that point. In the third case, the LGO caseworker repeatedly reminded the LA of the recommendations made but, at time of interview, they had not been implemented. An LGO representative clarified (by email) the position as to how that organisation handled non-compliance with recommendations, explaining that, “more robust systems for following up all remedies” were being introduced, including asking LAs to provide evidence that all recommendations had been complied with. Should recommendations not be complied with, three possible responses could be made. As reported by our parent interviewees, the LGO representative explained that one option was to “chase the council until the recommendations have been implemented in full”; a second option was to register a new complaint specifically about the failure to comply, adding that these cases would “generally go the Ombudsman with a recommendation to issue a public report”. In addition, the LGO would also “usually look for a further remedy
because of further unnecessary time and trouble and distress caused by the additional failings”. The LGO representative emphasised that, provided it was made aware of the situation, the organisation “would not simply allow LAs not to comply with
recommendations made”. A compliance rate of 99% was reported in 2015-16 (LGO, 2016).This topic of compliance with recommendations has been included here not only for its relevance to this chapter on complaints processes but also because of its
178
potential relevance for understanding the likely effectiveness of recommendations made by the First-tier Tribunal in the Recommendations pilot (Chapter 7).
A second theme was the length of time the LGO process took. Two parents told us they did not go ahead with complaining to the LGO when they realised how long it would take to be resolved. On the other hand, it is understandable that cases that have remained unresolved to the point of being passed up to the LGO would take time to investigate and reach a conclusion.
Others reported a successful resolution to their appeal, with the LGO upholding their complaints and recommending financial and other remedies. For example, the resolution of the young person’s complaint, highlighted in Figure 58, was that the Ombudsman upheld the complaint and recommended that the Council should:
"Pay (the young man) £1,000 for distress caused by severe delay in making a decision on whether he met the threshold for an EHC plan and frustration of an expectation and reasonably held belief, sustained by the Council for many months, that a decision had been made to arrange his education under an EHC plan. The sum is also an acknowledgement payment for detriment caused by delay in providing him with the opportunity to appeal to the SEND Tribunal against the Council’s
decision not to make an EHC plan.
Pay (the parent) £500 for distress caused by frustration of a reasonably held belief, sustained by the Council for many months, that a decision had been made to arrange her son’s education under an EHC plan and wasted time and effort contributing to a draft EHC plan.“ (Email update from parent of young person)
Health complaints
In our small sample, the issues complained about to health providers were: lack of therapy provision(lack of SLT for profoundly deaf child, insufficient provision of physiotherapy and absence of occupational therapy for over a year for a child who required this daily); failure to providenecessary equipment(in this case, a working electric wheelchair), and a complaint against an individual medical professional. Responses to the complaints were mixed in these few cases. An example of a
successfully resolved case was where the health provider apologised and agreed that the child needed more physiotherapy. These needs were written in to Section F of the EHC plan after legal advice. An example where staff turnover led to a resolution breaking down was a case where it was agreed that a newly appointed occupational therapist (OT) would include the child on her caseload. This did not happen because the manager who made that agreement left his role without having put it in writing, and so the lack of OT provision continued. We were told about one case where the letter responding to the complaint was written in such a way as to be very upsetting for the parent who received it.
179