Decision Report 202204879

Summary

C complained that the council failed to provide their grandchild (A) with reasonable support following an incident at primary school.

It is accepted by the council that the school should have held a second Child Protection Meeting (CPM). This was a clear oversight from the school, and it is not clear why this happened. This oversight led to C not being given feedback from the educational psychologist who had planned to feed back at the next CPM.

We found that the support offered to A was documented, evidence based and well thought out. An educational psychologist did not have any concerns about A, following their observation of them in class, that would have indicated further support measures were needed.

When C escalated their complaint with the council, we found that the council provided reasonable answers to the questions put to them in a reasonable timeframe. When it became clear that a CPM that had been cancelled had not been rescheduled, the council offered a further meeting which we consider was a reasonable remedy in the circumstances. Therefore, we did not uphold C's complaint.