An Ombudsman has slammed officers and senior managers at Salford city council who knew a girl was without education for two school terms but 'failed to take responsibility'. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has compensated the girl's mother to the tune of more than £4,000 after saying that no one at the authority helped [her mother] Miss Y and [daughter] Z find a school place'.
The city council has now agreed to 'apologise to Miss Y for its failure to have proper regard for Z's right to education and failure to provide appropriate support and help and its communication failures'. Miss Y will now receive £600 each for each school month of education Z missed from February 7 this year to the end of the summer term (21 school weeks), amounting to a total of £2,908 and a further £1,200 to 'acknowledge the distress, time and trouble these failures caused her'.
"I consider it appropriate for this payment to be used to reimburse Miss Y for costs she incurred in providing educational materials and activities for Z during this period, with the balance being used for the benefit of her education," the Ombudsman's report said.
READ MORE: Thugs ambush man on canal footpath near Tesco and slash him in head with machete
Miss Y's daughter and son attended a local primary school (School A), but towards the end of 2021, the mother became very concerned about issues relating to Z and School A. Her relationship with it began to break down and Miss Y raised concerns with the school through its complaints procedure.
The city council's children's services early help team were in contact with Miss Y to offer her support, including helping to improve her relationship with School A but told Miss Y they were unable to provide support for her complaint. By February, Miss Y's relationship with School A, regarding Z, had completely broken down. Miss Y stopped sending Z to school from February 7 and contacted the School Admissions and Educational Welfare (EW) the same day to tell them her daughter was no longer attending school.
Attempts to get alternative places at Schools B and C subsequently failed because both were full. Miss Y then appealed. Miss Y continued to contact EW asking for help, but the Ombudsman said: "She has told us calls and emails were not returned."
On March 18 EW received an email from the Government's School Complaints Unit saying it had been told a child in the council's area had been removed from school. "In line with its duties under the Education Act, the council should support the child back into education," the Ombudsman said.
"The council has told us about the action its children missing education officer took to establish facts about Z's removal from school. But I have not seen records of any positive action by the council to return Z to school or provide her with alternative provision in response to this email.
"The council has told us a school admissions officer spoke to Miss Y on April 8 and informed her there were other local school places. It said Miss Y refused offers of places at other schools because of personal circumstances. Its officer advised Miss Y she would have to wait for the appeal outcomes."
The Ombudsman goes on to say that he asked the council for a record of this conversation and the names of the other schools offered. "The council says a note of the conversation, or schools offered, was not made," he said.
"I have not seen any reference in the council's emails with Miss Y to the names of other schools with places available (until after an email of June 27) and Miss Y has told us she was not offered any alternative school places at this time." The Ombudsman found that, while there were some emails and telephone conversations in response to Miss Y's requests for help, the council did not properly explain the options to her.
"In my view, the council failed to provide Miss Y with appropriate advice or assistance regarding the availability of other school places or the application process," he said. "Having weighed up the evidence provided about the telephone conversation on April 8, my view is that it is more likely Miss Y was not made an offer of any alternative school places at this time.
"She was desperately trying to get her daughter back to school and I consider she would have responded to any offer made at that stage. My finding is that Miss Y was not offered any alternative school places until School D was offered on June 27."
He goes on: "My view is that it was fault by the council not to discuss the options of alternative school places with Miss Y in February, or at any point from then until June, when it knew places were available at Schools D and E. Because of this, Miss Y lost the opportunity to consider these options. I understand, in the recent meeting with Miss Y, she was told about a place available for Z at School E, for which she has now successfully applied."
The Ombudsman said that the council failed to consider whether it had a duty to make alternative provision available for Z, knowing she had been out of school since February and was not being provided with any education. The council also failed to take any action to intervene, as required by Section 437 [of the Education Act] to return Z to school or provide her with alternative provision, despite knowing she had been out of school.
"It was clear from what Miss Y said in her emails from the outset, and her efforts to contact the School Admissions and EW, how worried and upset she was about Z missing education and wanted to find her another school as quickly as possible," he said. "But, in my view, the council repeatedly failed to respond to Miss Y's requests for help.
"And, as the weeks, and then months, went on, with Z still out of school, I consider it was clear from Miss Y's contact how extremely distressed she was about the situation and the effect on Z of not being at school. There was no positive response from the council to miss Y's contact. I consider the failure to communicate with Miss Y was fault."
The Ombudsman concluded: "My view is that a number of officers and senior managers within the council knew Z had not been at school or provided with any education since February. Nobody appears to have taken responsibility for this by helping Miss Y find Z another school place.
"I consider Z's bests interests and right to an education were completely overlooked. Had the council given this proper consideration, it could (and should) have taken appropriate action to ensure Z was provided with a suitable education as soon as it knew she was no longer attending school. Instead, Miss Y was left to try to resolve the situation herself without appropriate support from the council. I consider this was fault."
A council spokesperson said: “We have co-operated with the Ombusdman’s investigation and accept the conclusions of the report.”
READ NEXT:
- This is Awaab - the little boy who died after being exposed to damp and mould in his home
-
Dad of teen, 19, who died after Snake Pass crash left furious at emergency services
-
They deserved better, Greater Manchester deserves better, it must not happen again
-
Town centre chaos as 'fabulous' drivers get stuck in new one-way system and mount kerb
