Summary: Mr & Mrs X complained the Council refused to provide home to school transport for their son. The Council has now offered to provide transport for the new school year and made alternative arrangements for the rest of this term. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as we are satisfied with the Council’s actions.
Summary: Mr X complains about the arrangements for contact with his children and the Council’s response to a stage two independent investigation into the matter. The Council was entitled to change the contact arrangements. However, the Council failed to invite Mr X to the looked after children reviews and continues to do so. The Council has also failed to carry out the recommendations from the independent stage two investigation. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him £750. It has also agreed for a suitable person to meet with Mr X to discuss his children’s progress since 2015 and carry out the recommendations from the investigation.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms M’s complaints about various decisions the Council has made in relation to her and her two children who are on Child Protection Plans. This is because an investigation would be unlikely to find fault.
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to communicate with her properly when her grandchildren were taken into care. I have found some fault in the Council’s actions. To remedy this the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the distress caused.
Summary: Mr X complained about the behaviour of an officer during a meeting with his daughter who was a foster carer for the Council. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint further as Mr X has not claimed any significant injustice himself. Other issues he has raised will be dealt with in complaints made by his wife and daughter.
Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about the Council’s child protection failings between 1988 and 1990. This is because we do not have grounds to exercise discretion to investigate events which happened so long ago.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the decision to refuse her appeal for a school place for her son. It is unlikely he would find fault on the Council’s part.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the decision to refuse her appeal for a school place for her son. It is unlikely he would find fault on the admission authority’s part.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint about the decision to refuse his appeal for a school place for his son. It is unlikely he would find fault on the admission authority’s part.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the decision to refuse her appeal for a school place for her daughter. It is unlikely he would find fault on the Council’s part.
Summary: Mr B complains the school admissions appeal panel did not properly consider his daughter’s in-year appeal, and its decision to reject this was unfair. The Ombudsman has found the panel properly considered the appeal before concluding the School’s case was stronger. Therefore, the School was not at fault when the panel rejected the appeal.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council has refused his application for a school place for his daughter. Mr A has not completed the appeal process available to him and the Ombudsman would expect him to do so.
Summary: when Ms M and Mr F separated, a Court decided Mr F should have custody of their children. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about matters decided by the Court, and further investigation of Ms M’s complaint against the Council will not lead to a different outcome.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs G’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s child protection team. It is unlikely we could achieve more than the Council has already provided.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that a foster carer failed to return all her belongings. It is unlikely our investigation could significantly add to the Council’s proposed action.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms G’s complaint about decisions about where her grandchildren should live. The decisions have been, and will be, made by a court so are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council not disclosing information to her. There is another body better placed to consider this allegation. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the conduct of Court proceedings.
Summary: Miss B complains that the Council delayed issuing an education, health and care plan for her son, C, failed to deliver the special educational needs provision on the plan, and failed to deliver alternative education while C was out of school. The Council was at fault for not delivering some of the special educational needs provision and for delays in reviewing the plan, but was not at fault for not delivering other parts of the provision or for the home tuition it offered. The Council has agreed to apologise for the identified faults and to make payments totalling £1210 to Miss B and C to recognise their injustice.
Summary: The complaint is about an appeal hearing against the refusal of the admission authority to offer the complainant’s daughter a Year 4 place at Holy Trinity Primary School. The school provided new information at the appeal hearing it should have provided before. The Panel did not have sufficient information to make a robust decision about whether the complainant’s circumstances outweighed school prejudice. The Panel should have adjourned the hearing so the complainant could prepare her appeal with the new information. The admission authority agreed to arrange a fresh appeal to remedy this.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the decision to refuse her appeal for a school place for her daughter. It is unlikely he would find fault on the Council’s part.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that the Council has refused her appeals for free school transport for her daughters because it is unlikely he would find fault on the Council’s part.
Summary: Mrs B says the Council failed to take appropriate action to protect her son and placed him in unsuitable accommodation. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council handled the case or in how it arranged accommodation for Mrs B’s son.
Summary: Miss B complains the Council’s investigation of her complaint did not properly consider the impact its failures had on her when she was a looked after child. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for the way it dealt with Miss B’s complaint and did not investigate it in line with the statutory procedure, which it should have done. The complaint warrants further investigation, therefore the Council will initiate a stage two investigation under the children’s social care statutory complaints procedure immediately.
Summary: Ms R wanted the Council to agree to support her family when they had no recourse to public funds. There was evidence of fault and the Council has been asked to apologise, arrange training and make a payment.
Summary: Mr X complained to the Council about an inappropriate comment he said an independent reviewing officer made about him at the end of a conference telephone call. The Council considered this complaint through all three stages of the statutory children’s complaint procedure. The stage three panel came to a finding of unsubstantiated in respect of this complaint. The Council properly considered this finding and of the earlier stage two investigation which had upheld this complaint. There was no fault in how the Council considered this complaint.
Summary: Mr F complained to the Council about its response to a safeguarding referral he had made about his children. The Council referred Mr F to the Ombudsman rather than using the statutory procedure for children’s complaints. This was fault. The Council has agreed to start a second stage investigation under that procedure without delay.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council’s social workers have failed to provide support to his family and have unlawfully placed his children for adoption. Investigation would not lead to the outcome Mr A wants. The matter will be decided in court.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A’s complaint about the Council’s actions in placing her children with their grandparents. The matter will be decided in court and the Ombudsman cannot achieve what Miss A wants.
Summary: Mrs X complains of failings by the Council in relation to her daughter, Y’s special education needs. The Council failed to make the provision in Y’s Statement of SEN, failed to make a further offer of alternative educational provision for part of a period when she was out of education and did not deal with her complaint when she made it. The Council will apologise and pay Mrs X £600 for the injustice caused by fault.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint about the decision to refuse her appeal for a school place for her son. It is unlikely he would find fault on the Council’s part.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs M’s complaint that the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the School’s Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her child with a place. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused her to lose out on a school place.
Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s delay in starting the transition process for her disabled son when his residential college placement was due to end. She also complains about lack of social work support for him. There was fault by the Council causing uncertainty, distress and anxiety to Miss X and her son. The Council has agreed a remedy to acknowledge these faults and improve the Council’s procedures in this area.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot and should not investigate Miss J’s complaint about children’s services’ involvement with her family, because the issues are tied up with the court’s decision about where her children should live.
Summary: There was fault in the information and advice the Council provided to Mrs C and her son D, who has special educational needs. The Ombudsman has recommended the Council apologises to Mrs C and D, pays a financial remedy and reviews the advice it gives.
Summary: The Ombudsman does not find there is fault by the Council or the appeal panel in its consideration of Miss M’s application and appeal for a primary school place for her son.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about delay in responding to a request for a Special Educational Needs assessment. This is because the fault did not cause significant injustice to the complainant’s son.
Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s investigations into his family in 2013 and 2014 after concerns were raised about his children. The Ombudsman has stopped investigating the complaint as it would not be possible to carry out a fair investigation given the time that has passed since events complained of.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the accuracy of documents as there is another body better placed to do so. And we should not investigate her complaint about the Council excluding her from a child protection strategy meeting. There is inadequate injustice to her to justify an investigation.
Summary: we will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to start care proceedings about his children. This is because we cannot investigate any matter being considered by a court.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot legally investigate Mr G’s complaint that the Council wrongly assessed his daughter as being a suitable person to look after his granddaughter. The key decision was made by a court and is therefore out of jurisdiction.
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.
