Summary: Mrs X complained the Council-run service her daughter was referred to for non-attendance at school, was unhelpful and caused her distress. She said allegations that her daughter was bullied were ignored.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs M’s complaint about a medical examination carried out on her adult child. It is unlikely we would say the alleged injustice has been caused by the Council’s fault.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in the way it managed a disabled young person’s transition to college and in failing to respond effectively to concerns the young person’s special educational provision was not in place. There was further delay in intervening when the young person was excluded from college. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide a financial remedy and review its procedures. The complaint is upheld.

Summary: There were failings in the way the Council considered an appeal for travel assistance to college. The Council has agreed to carry out a fresh appeal, make a payment to reimburse the complainant’s travel costs if the new appeal is successful and provide training to its panel members.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly advise her about the consequences of signing a section 20 agreement, and has not taken adequate or appropriate action to ensure her child’s safety and well-being while in the Council’s care The Council’s failure to record how it explained the process and outcome of section 20 of the Children Act to Mrs X amounts to fault. This fault does not mean the decision to accommodate her child was wrong, and has not caused Mrs X an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the production of two assessment reports about the complainant. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome achievable through investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr & Mrs B and Ms X’s complaint about court reports the Council provided in family court proceedings. It lies outside our jurisdiction because the law prevents us from investigating matters that have been considered in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a report produced by the Council. This is because the report was produced for court proceedings and has been used in court. The matter complained about is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate.

Summary: the Council was at fault because it took too long to arrange a transfer conference when Miss X’s daughter, who at the time was subject to a child protection plan, moved to another Council’s area to live with her father. That fault did not cause injustice to Miss X. I have not upheld Miss X’s complaint about the conduct of the social work manager.

Summary: The Council delayed communicating a decision not to issue an EHC Plan for a child (B) following statutory assessment. The Council failed to put in place Alternative Education for B when this was justified. The Ombudsman recommended and the Council agreed to apologise in writing to Mr and Mrs C, pay B £1,500 to acknowledge lost educational provision, pay Mr and Mrs C £500 to acknowledge distress caused by failure to issue a timely decision on whether to make an EHC Plan, and finalise and publish policy on Alternative Education.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council dealt with Mrs C’s appeal for home to school transport for her daughter. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs C, amend its procedures and review the transport arrangements for Mrs C’s daughter.

Summary: The Ombudsman finds that the Council is at fault for failing to properly consider a young person’s transport needs. The Council has agreed to hear the transport appeal again. The Ombudsman finds that the Council is at fault for delay in implementing special educational provision and not considering a request for direct payments. The Council has agreed to review its procedures and apologise.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has refused to provide her son with a travel pass to get to sixth form college. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered her application for transport assistance for her son

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in relation to the care and well-being of the complainant’s child. This is because the part of the complaint relating to a Section 37 Report is out of our jurisdiction as it was considered by a court, and we cannot achieve the outcomes that the complainant seeks.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the compilation and content of an assessment report about the complainant’s family. This is because the report was produced for court proceedings and is therefore out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s late complaint about the Council’s actions regarding him and his daughter, B, in 2015. This is because Mr A could have come to the Ombudsman sooner, and, the Ombudsman could not achieve the outcome Mr A wants by investigating.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of social workers and a report they produced. This is because the report was produced for court proceedings and has been used in court. The matters complained about are therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate.

Summary: The Council is not at fault for not allowing Mrs X’s son, Y, to travel on the school bus. The Council has assessed the route as safe for Y to walk accompanied to the bus stop. This is in line with the relevant legislation and a decision the Council is entitled to take.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs M’s complaint about special education needs provision for her child. A Court decided which school B should attend and when, and a Tribunal is considering the wording of B’s Education Health and Care Plan.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her daughter with free transport to school. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to properly assess her children under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. The Council was not at fault for not carrying out a section 17 assessment. The Council delayed providing Mrs B with a formal decision letter. That denied Mrs B the opportunity to provide more evidence at an earlier stage although it did not affect the outcome. An apology and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs B’s complaint about faults in the process relating to an Adoption Order. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction because it involves court decisions and Mrs B has an appeal case pending with the courts.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a payment owed to him as a foster carer. The payment is for a period in 2015 which means it is late and there are no good reasons to disapply the late complaint rule.

Summary: we cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove Miss X’s children from her care as this has been considered in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs P’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide speech and language therapy to their child. The Council has already provided extra sessions and it is unlikely our investigation could achieve more.

Summary: Summary: There was fault by the Council because of a delay in completing an education, health and care plan for the complainant’s daughter. The Council agreed to provide a financial remedy to reflect the injustice suffered by the complainant’s daughter.

Summary: Miss B complains that the Council should backdate her daughter’s school transport mileage payments to 2005 because her school was named in her SEN Statement. She also considers that the Council has underpaid her since 2011. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation into the backdating of payments because the Council told Miss B in 2005 that it considered the school to be parental preference, and she could have complained then if she felt her daughter was entitled to school transport. The Ombudsman does not consider that Miss B has been underpaid since 2011.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse free school transport for her daughter. She says the walking route to school is unsafe and the Council has made inconsistent decisions. The Ombudsman finds the Council’s decision making was correct. And there was no fault causing significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s appeal panel’s decision to refuse free school transport for his daughter, Y. He says the walking route to school is unsafe and the appeal panel’s decision was flawed. The Ombudsman finds the appeal panel’s decision making was correct. And there was no fault causing significant injustice.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse free school transport for his two sons. He says the walking route to school is unsafe and the Council’s policy is unfair. The Ombudsman finds the Council’s decision making was correct. And there was no fault causing significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant her daughter free transport to school. It is unlikely an investigation would find fault with how the decision was reached and so we cannot question its merits.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s assessment following an allegation made by one of his children. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation as the Council has agreed to investigate the complaint at stage 2 of the corporate complaints procedure.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to remove his children from his care. This is because it would be reasonable for him to raise these matters in court.