Isle of Wight Council Accused Of Maladministration By Local Government Ombudsman

The Local Government Ombudsman has criticised the Isle of Wight Council over the special educational provision for a visually-impaired Island girl.

Isle of Wight Council Accused Of Maladministration By Local Government OmbudsmanJane Martin, whose report has been released today, summarised it, “The Council’s failure to provide what was on the statement of special educational needs contravened Section 324 of the Education Act 1996 and so was maladministration.” The Ombudsman found that that this maladministration caused injustice.

The circumstances
It all started when a mother (they’ve given her the pseudonym of Mrs Bentley to protect her identity) complained that the Council failed to provide what was required by the statement of special educational needs for her daughter, “Julie” (also not her real name). Julie is registered blind, having no sight in one eye and only limited vision in the other.

Julie’s statement of special educational needs provided that she should have ten hours per week input from a qualified teacher for the visually impaired.

“Consistently failed to provide”
The record provided by the IW Council showed that they consistently failed to provide the full 10 hours. Only some of the missed provision was due to circumstances beyond the Council’s control.

After looking at the evidence the Ombudsman considers the Council failed to make proper arrangements to deliver the whole of the provision on Julie’s statement.

The timetable for the teacher designated to provide the input did not specify precisely how the provision was to be met. The Ombudsman accepts the Council’s argument that it is difficult to provide cover for unexpected absences such as sickness, but there is evidence to show that the Council could have provided greater cover than it did.

Remedy the injustice
As a result of this the Isle of Wight Council has “agreed to remedy the injustice” by

  • paying £1,500 to Mrs Bentley, as compensation for her distress, time and trouble;
  • paying a further £3,500 to Mrs Bentley to provide additional help for Julie to enable her to make up for the provision she has lost in a way she deems appropriate; and
  • review its procedures to ensure that the provision on statements of special educational needs are met and to review the supervision of teachers employed by the Council who work in various locations, such that everyone concerned is clear what they are required to do, and when and where they should carry out their duties.

The full report (PDF)

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
8 Comments
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Janet Scott
21, December 2011 6:40 pm

Why did they choose ‘over the next 9 years’.

What is the significance of ‘9 years’.

adrian nicholas
21, December 2011 7:22 pm

well – divide the previous pre-2010 spend on tourism comparative to the new ‘private’ sector all embracing scheme of £3m over 9 years and hey presto – less iwc support for tourism – although as it now relabelled private sector then the iwc does’nt have to commit further budgetary resources.

I other words less money for anticipated less tourism.

John Allen
Reply to  adrian nicholas
21, December 2011 7:47 pm

Most of the interesting detail on this is in the appendix, from which you will see that the Council are committing to maintain their current expenditure on tourism for 8 years provided that more funding comes from elsewhere from year 4 onwards. With a fair wind this venture will be a vehicle for attracting funding from other places, which the present arrangement does not easily allow. More… Read more »

John Allen
Reply to  adrian nicholas
21, December 2011 7:50 pm

Sorry I meant the funding is committed for 9 years (I’ll have to put the light on when I’m typing!).

No.5
Reply to  John Allen
22, December 2011 12:00 am

No chance…the private bodies investing are the same private bodies who currently contribute to the coffers i.e. RF WL RH BC etc….they have been putting money in the pot for some time and running (down) tourism on the Island….problem was, the council got to spend that pot!!!!! (badly) At least these bigboys (and anybody else that can donate at least £10,000 per annum) will be desciding what… Read more »

John Allen
Reply to  No.5
22, December 2011 12:20 am

And how do you know that? You are confusing the contributions from people to be members with the ability of the organisation to raise money. Visit England, for example, have money available but won’t contribute unless it is from the proper model of a Destination Management Organisation. This may not be any better, that is to be seen, but it is unlikely to be worse than the… Read more »

No.5
Reply to  John Allen
22, December 2011 12:49 am

agree…it could hardly be worse.

I just doubt their ability to do better

Tanja Rebel
21, December 2011 8:47 pm

How about reinstating the Tourist Information Centres? Now there’s an idea!

James P
Reply to  Tanja Rebel
21, December 2011 9:39 pm

Not to mention loos. In fact, just put it back the way it was, please!

Cynic
Reply to  James P
18, February 2015 7:59 pm

Combine TICs with public loos-in separate parts of the buildings of course- and kill two birds with one stone? Simples!

Sailor Sam
Reply to  Tanja Rebel
22, December 2011 11:56 am

If I understand the maths correctly, £3m over 9 years is roughly how much it cost to keep the TIC’s open! Priceless!

Island Monkey
21, December 2011 10:51 pm

Who IS the genius running the council press office?

This is a blatant cuts announcement, badly dressed up as investment. It’s fairly obvious they will be spending a lot less than ever before.

Stewart Blackmore
Reply to  Island Monkey
22, December 2011 10:23 am

Gavin Foster, ex IWCP. How do you think that the Council is treated so leniently (apart from La Hofton’s column, occassionaly)by the CP?

phil jordan
Reply to  Stewart Blackmore
18, February 2015 7:54 pm

stewart blackmore:

Good grief stewart…you *really* are out of touch.
You’ll find gavin up at Island Roads these days…..hasn’t been at the Council for quite a while.

phil jordan
Reply to  Stewart Blackmore
18, February 2015 8:01 pm

ooops……. quite how I got this old thread up and then responded to it….I have no idea.
Very sorry stewart….at the time you posted you were entirely correct.
Need to check more carefully in future..

Stewart Blackmore
Reply to  phil jordan
18, February 2015 10:21 pm

we all make mistakes Phil :)

Asite2c
22, December 2011 9:30 am

The council like to tell us £3 million of council funding be invested in tourism industry over the next nine years, but never say how, where or explain any improvements the money will bring.

I just hope this is not another 3 million going down the drain and into the pockets of big business?

ML
Reply to  Asite2c
22, December 2011 3:35 pm

It probably is. I can never understand why, if tourism is such a great thing for the Island economy, it needs all these subsidies from council taxpayers. Why don’t Island tourist businesses pay for their own advertising?

No.5
Reply to  ML
22, December 2011 5:47 pm

they do..they pay to advertise on the council run Tourists site and the same amount again to advertise on the one they outsourced to last time, but decided to go into competition with rather than hand over the reigns

Island Explorer
Reply to  ML
4, January 2012 10:16 pm

We do pay for our advertising, even if (like us) are promoting the Island. The fact is the loss of the TICs has had a big affect on certian businesses who manufacture souvenirs and publications which use to be sold in the TICs which in turn made a profitt for the council. The TICs were the front line in tourism and the service and guidence they provided… Read more »

CaptainSense
22, December 2011 10:55 am

The Island *should be* a world class tourist destination – it’s just that it’s blighted by 1. our open spaces being filled up with uninspiring identikit housing estates with satellite dishes plastered to the front of each house, 2. trouble in our towns with yobbish drunken behavior and littering, 3. A council who tries to close down anything which may be vaguely interesting to holidaymakers (i.e Waterside… Read more »

No.5
Reply to  CaptainSense
22, December 2011 11:12 am

They just have no vision……we need a world class water park…a Centre Parcs and a Safari Park….all things they have rejected/failed to encourage.

Mitch
Reply to  No.5
22, December 2011 11:17 am

They wouldn’t possibly allow things that would actually give employment to Islanders now would they….

W.H Inger
Reply to  Mitch
22, December 2011 12:51 pm

No, tourists just wear out the roads sooner! Why bother hosting coach trippers when they can get as much income to the Island by building stuff like the Vestas monstrosity, massive housing estates and now this new belching and ugly power station oops, I mean biomass thing! Would you want to holiday at Fawley? I bet their roads are good! :)

Rowan
Reply to  CaptainSense
4, January 2012 8:13 pm

If the people in charge of IW Council had any vision they would have been supporting Ventnor Botanic Garden, countryside management, beaches, parks and public open spaces, museums, theatres and galleries. Have a look at Bournemouth for an obvious comparison. Instead they’ve cut funding every year to anything that makes the Island a good place not just for tourists but for residents as well. They’ve closed the… Read more »

Cynic
Reply to  Rowan
18, February 2015 8:09 pm

“Now we’re about to see the sale of Ventnor Botanic Garden.” Really? Where is that announced?

PAUL MULLERY
23, December 2011 9:21 am

Before we retired to the Island, my wife and I came here for over 20 years as tourists. As once-a-year visitors we noticed that not much effort was made to market the place as a “must visit again” attraction which we put down to an inactive council and idle business owners. As examples: The old crab shack was derelict for years spoiling a nice walk along the… Read more »

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined