Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not ensure her daughter Y got the support required by her Education, Health and Care Plan from September 2016 until June 2017. The Council took part in the annual review of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan in May 2017 without fault. The Council could not compel Y to have the travel training. It took four months to fully respond to Miss X’s complaint about non-delivery of part of that Plan which is fault. It has agreed to pay Miss X £100 for the time and trouble caused by its delay which is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about an appeal for the complainant’s preferred school for his son to be named on the child’s Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP). This is because the complainant has exercised his right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, and the matter is therefore out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault that has caused injustice in this complaint about the provision of services to Ms X’s son by Bedford Borough Council’s children’s services team. The Council issued an amended Education, Health and Social Care Plan following an annual review in 2017 that was very slightly delayed but this did not cause any significant injustice and does not justify a remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council’s communication with the complainant about its contribution towards her children’s nursery fees. This led to unnecessary confusion for the complainant. The Council’s poor record-keeping contributed to this. The Ombudsman recommends the Council apologise for this confusion. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied the Council has now taken action to improve its record-keeping.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to change the decision on the complainant’s housing banding. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the review decision was made. We will not investigate the other matters raised by the complainant as they have been previously considered and decided.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the involvement of the Council’s Children’s Services with the complainant’s family, and the adoption of her children. This is because the events complained of were known to the complainant more than 12 months ago. They are out of our jurisdiction, and there are no good reasons to investigate them now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council delayed resolution of his son’s case and threatened to prevent him from having unsupervised contact with his son. Mr A had the right to take the issue of contact to court and it would have been reasonable for him to do so. The court has now considered the matter and investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to put in place provision in his son’s statement of special educational needs, delayed issuing an education, health and care plan and delayed a school transfer. The Council failed to ensure an increase in speech and language provision was put into place between 2015 and 2017 and delayed issuing an education, health and care plan. There was no fault in how the Council dealt with the school transfer. Mr B’s son missed out on speech and language provision and Mr B had to go to time and trouble to pursue his complaint. An apology, financial payment and a reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms U says the Council failed to properly consider her application for home-to-school transport for her daughter. There is no evidence of Council fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr and Mrs G’s complaint that the Council has failed to arrange proper contact with their grandchild. The Ombudsman could not achieve the outcome Mr and Mrs G seek and they could ask a court to consider a child arrangement order to secure contact of the kind they want.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in relation to the complainant’s children, when he and his wife were arrested. This is because we cannot consider any matter that has been the subject of court proceedings or criminal investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss M’s complaint about a report the Council produced for court proceedings as the law prevents it.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint alleging a social worker lied in a court report. This is because it will be used in court proceedings and it reasonable to expect Miss X to raise her concerns at court.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in the support it offered to Mrs X’s son during his transition to post 16 education and training. Her son has special educational needs. There was some fault in the Council’s delay in carrying out a social care assessment but no significant injustice arose from this.

Summary: Miss X complains the Independent Appeal Panel did not properly consider her appeal for her daughter, Y, to attend Year 2 in School A. She is now struggling to take her children to different schools. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault in how the Independent Appeal Panel considered Miss X’s appeal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr F’s complaint that the Council’s schools admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide his child with a place at his preferred school. It is unlikely the investigation would find fault which caused the child to lose out on a school place.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss A’s complaint that the Council failed to prevent her losing residence of her daughter. The law prevents the Ombudsman from investigating matters which have been decided in court.