Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant her daughters free transport to school. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault with the way the Council acted and so we cannot question the merits of its decision.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the handling of a safeguarding referral by the Council’s children’s services department. This is because we cannot achieve the outcomes that the complainant is seeking.
Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to start an investigation of this complaint about the school admission appeal panel’s refusal of a parent’s appeal concerning a school place for her daughter. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with the appeal.
Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council handled safeguarding procedures regarding her two children. The Council investigated, found fault, and took action to remedy the injustice caused. Mrs X believes the remedies were inadequate. The Ombudsman upholds Mrs X’s complaint. However, we are satisfied that the Council has already taken appropriate action to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X.
Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs M’s complaint about children services actions in 2015 and 2016. The events are over 12 months old and therefore late. There are no good reasons to disapply the late complaint rule.
Summary: Mrs J complained about the Council’s care of her children and its decision to place them for adoption. The Council has now started to consider the first part of this complaint using the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services so the Ombudsman should not consider this further at this stage. The decision to place the children for adoption is a court decision which cannot be challenged through the complaints procedure or by the Ombudsman.
Summary: The Ombudsmen will not investigate Mrs M’s complaint about her child’s care package, housing adaptations and her family’s housing. It would be reasonable to wait for the conclusion of legal action by Mrs M’s children, which may resolve all her concerns.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to pass some money to Mr X’s wife. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.
Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his daughter. The events he complains about happened too long ago. The Council has now started court proceedings, which the Ombudsman cannot investigate.
Summary: The Council has agreed to put Mr and Mrs J’s complaint about their grandson’s social worker through the statutory complaints process for complaints about children’s services. So the Ombudsman should not consider the matter further at this stage.
Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about the Council preventing contact with his grandchildren, because this is an issue he can take to court. Mr J can ask the Information Commissioner to consider his complaint about the accuracy of the information the Council holds about him.
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about harm he says Council foster carers caused him in the 1970s. There are no sufficient reasons to disapply the late complaint rule.
Summary: There was unreasonable delay by the Council in arranging an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for the complainant’s son. The complaint was closed because the Council agreed to a financial remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant and her son.
Summary: we will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to protect Mr X’s children from harm and abuse. We cannot improve on the Council’s own investigation and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X would like.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the involvement of the Council’s children’s services with the care and contact arrangements for the complainant’s child. This is because the decisions were made by a court, and the matter is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Summary: we will not investigate this complaint about the way Children’s Services and the Police investigated how Mr X treated his children. The complaint is late and we cannot investigate the actions of the Police.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council handles its children’s social care cases. This is because the complaint is from a school, and the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints from such bodies.
Summary: Mr X complains that the Council refuses to investigate his complaint about comments made by a social worker. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we will find fault in the Council’s actions. Nor do we consider that Mr X has suffered a significant personal injustice.
Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mr T’s complaints about how it responded to his concerns that his daughter, U, did not want contact with him because of her mother’s manipulation. There were delays with the complaint process at stage 2. There was no fault on his complaints about its response to referrals, failing to involve him in assessments, using untrained staff, and producing inaccurate, misleading, and biased reports. The Council agreed to apologise to him for the delay and share lessons learned with relevant officers.
The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains about the actions of the Council. He says the Council has placed his children with the children’s mother, restricted his contact with them and failed to act on his concerns about their welfare.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot and should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his family, because the issues are tied up with the court’s decisions about his children’s welfare.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate the loss of Mr J’s USB stick as it would be reasonable for him to take this matter to the Information Commissioner.
Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council held meetings to consider his actions as an adult who works with children. The Ombudsman has not found fault with the way the meetings were held but there was poor record keeping and the Council failed to consider the protocol for missing children. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and to place a detailed note of its reasons for upholding the allegation on his file.
Summary: the Council failed to tell Mrs B about changes to how it organised her respite care arrangements. An apology, provision of further information about roles and responsibilities and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.
Summary: Once the Council had named School A in X’s Educational and Health Care Plan, it was bound to provide free transport in accordance with its policy. Otherwise it could have named the nearer school it considered suitable and enabled Mrs A to appeal. The complaint is upheld.
Summary: The Council is at fault in that it failed to consider all relevant factors when deciding to prosecute the complainant for her child’s non-attendance at school. Although the Council does not fully accept the Ombudsman’s findings, it has agreed the recommended action to settle this complaint. The Ombudsman is therefore closing the complaint.
Summary: Mr B complained the Council rejected an appeal against a decision it could not provide home to school transport for his son, who has special educational needs. The Ombudsman found fault as the Council did not properly consider its policy and all representations made by the complainant. This caused injustice to Mr B as we could not say the Council would have refused his appeal but for the fault. The Council has accepted this finding and agreed to provide Mr B with a fresh appeal.
Summary: We cannot investigate Mr F’s complaint about the consultation process used by a school academy proposing to expand. The Council does not make the final decision on this proposal nor decide the consultation process.
Summary: The Council failed to assess Mrs X’s circumstances properly when she took on the care of her nephews. When it carried out an assessment three months later it decided to treat her as a friends and family foster carer and pay her a fostering allowance. If it had assessed her properly from the start it is likely it would have made the same decision earlier. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay her a sum to make up for the allowance she missed out on.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. There is no sign of fault in the way the Council has responded to Ms M’s concerns about her children’s welfare. The Ombudsman cannot achieve the outcome she seeks.
Summary: we will not investigate this complaint about Children Services’ failure to respond to Miss X’s request for a copy of her and her children’s records. The Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with the complaint.
We look at individual complaints about local public services and all registerable social care providers in England.
We remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to improve services. When we find a council or care provider has done something wrong, we recommend how it should put it right. We are free to use and make our decisions independently.
