Summary: There was a short delay by the Council in putting in place alternative provision when the complainant’s son could not continue to attend his previous school. Recommendations to remedy this injustice and change practice in future have been made.

Summary: Mrs X has complained about the Council’s refusal to provide assistance with home to school transport for her daughter, D, who attends a special school named in her Education, Health and Care Plan (the Plan). The Council is at fault for not providing school transport and also for not reviewing the Plan. The Council has agreed our recommendations to pay Mrs X £2,250 for the costs incurred due to the refusal to provide school transport, check and take action if it has failed to review others plans, and review its procedures to avoid a recurrence of the faults identified.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council had refused assistance with home to school transport when her daughter transferred to a new school. The Council was not at fault in the way it made this decision. It considered the individual circumstances of Mrs X’s case against relevant law and guidance.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss M’s complaint about a lack of special educational needs assessment decision notice. The Council has now issued the notice and it is reasonable to expect Miss M to appeal the decision to the Tribunal.

Summary: The Council was at fault for refusing to investigate Mr B’s complaint under stage 2 of the Children Act complaints procedure. Care proceedings are now ongoing in relation to C’s care. When these proceedings have concluded, the Council has agreed to write to Mr B and advise him that he can resubmit his complaint. This will remedy Mr B’s injustice.

Summary: Mr X says the Council did not act properly on a safeguarding referral it received in September 2014 with the consequence that his son was left without education between September 2014 and January 2015. No further action is needed as the issue is not one the Ombudsman can deal with.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr and Mrs G’s complaint about evidence given to a Court and the events which led up to children leaving their care. The law prevents the Ombudsman from investigating legal proceedings.

Summary: Ms B complained the Council delayed completing her daughter’s education, health and care plan and failed to follow the set process. The evidence shows the Council delayed issuing the plan and delayed referring for a sensory assessment. Ms B had to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint, is frustrated about the delay and is left not knowing if earlier referral would have resulted in an different outcome for her daughter. An apology, financial remedy and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council had removed her son C’s taxi to college without sufficient justification. I consider the Council failed to take adequate account of the impact of C’s disabilities on his ability to access the independent travel training programme. The Council has agreed to reconsider this point and in the meantime reinstate the taxi service.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the Council’s inconsistent application of its home to school transport policy for children with special educational needs. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault in the Council’s application of the policy in question.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to provide adequate support to her when she looked after a child who was left in her care by his father, and instead treated it as a private fostering arrangement. The Council was not at fault in the way decided it was a private fostering arrangement or in the way it dealt with Ms X’s requests for financial support.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s implementation of child protection procedures in relation to the complainant’s children. This is because the complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s responses to questions raised about its involvement with the complainant and her daughter. This is because investigation would not add anything further to the Council’s investigation and response.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure an OT assessment was carried out on time and that respite care was provided. This caused injustice to Mr and Mrs D and their son. The Council has agreed to pay monies to be used for F's educational benefit. There is no fault by the Council in refusing to reimburse driving costs or in the provision of social care. Other parts of the complaint are out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot consider this complaint about missed provision for a child with Special Educational Needs. This is because the complainant exercised her right to appeal against the provision offered by the Council, and the complaint is therefore out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council failed to provide alternative education or deliver special educational needs provision for their son, C, while he was out of school, took too long to issue an education, health and care plan, and refused to allow them to educate C at home. The Council was not at fault because it issued the plan within statutory timescales, and because Mr and Mrs B refused to send C to the placement which the Council had provided. However, the Council was at fault for failing to respond to part of a complaint that Mr and Mrs B made in April 2017. It has agreed to apologise for this.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant her child 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: Mrs B complains the Council refused to fund an extension of her home to provide more accommodation to meet the needs of her grandchildren, for whom she is a Connected Person foster carer. The Ombudsman finds no fault in the way the Council decided the current accommodation is not unsafe for the children and the placement remains in their best interests.

Summary: The Council was at fault for not responding to parts of Mr and Mrs D’s complaint at stage 1 of the Children Act 1989 statutory complaints procedure. However, it was not at fault for refusing to respond to other parts of the complaint. The Council has agreed to respond to the parts of the complaint that it should have considered, which will remedy E’s injustice and Mr and Mrs D’s injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council acted after she withdrew her son S from school because he was being bullied. The Council promptly started checking if S was getting a suitable education at home, offered S a place at the same school and refused home to school transport to Mrs X’s preferred school in accordance with its policy. We have found no evidence of fault in its actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council did not inform the complainant of the deadline for school admission applications. This is because if she is refused a place at one of her preferred schools she can appeal the decision to an Independent Appeal Panel which can consider whether the Council applied its admissions arrangements fairly.

Summary: The Council investigated Mr B’s complaint about his leaving care support without fault. But the financial remedy it offered him was not enough and it has agreed to increase it.

Summary: The Council and Trust provided suitable support for a young person and his family in response to safeguarding concerns. However, there was some delay in initial Council assessments and an accepted lack of clarity by the Trust in its dealings with the complainant but this did not cause significant injustice due to other factors.

Summary: The Council and Trust provided suitable support for a young person and his family in response to safeguarding concerns. However, there was some delay in initial Council assessments and an accepted lack of clarity by the Trust in its dealings with the complainant but this did not cause significant injustice due to other factors.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the evidence given by a social worker in court. This is because issues to do with court proceedings are out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. His other complaint, regarding the conduct of a social worker in a Child Protection Conference, is made late and there is no good reason to consider it now.

Summary: we cannot investigate this complaint about Ms X’s contact arrangements with her child. This is because the matter has been considered in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to grant her children 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.