Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s delays and failure to follow correct procedure, preparing her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council took too long, did not consult with Mrs X’s preferred choice of school and failed to ensure delivery of educational provision set out in Z’s final plan for a year. The Council has agreed to apologise and offer to commission an independent review of the impact of loss of provision and pay for appropriate catch-up. It has agreed to pay Z £500 as a token recognition of the impact on her. It has agreed to also pay Mrs X £250 as a token recognition of her time and trouble.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not take action after he reported a safeguarding concern about his daughter. He further complains the Council did not communicate with him effectively. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to safeguard Mr X’s daughter. However, it gave Mr X confusing information about the status of her case. The Council agrees to apologise to Mr X for this and inform him of its involvement.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council has failed to offer his son an appropriate school place. It is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mrs M complained the Council had failed to put in place alternative educational provision when her son was out of school. There is evidence of fault and the Council has been asked to apologise, make a payment and change its procedures.

Summary: Mrs K complained the Council failed to comply with legal requirements when it produced an Education, Health and Care Plan for her daughter, L. She said the Council did not address her complaints. There is evidence of fault. The Council has agreed to make a payment for time and trouble and accepted that it needs to change the way it handles complaints.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council refused to provide free home to school transport for her child Z. The Council is at fault as it did not properly consider if Mrs X’s circumstances were exceptional enough to warrant a departure from its home to school travel policy when considering her application for free school transport for her child. Had it done so it is likely the Council would have offered free school transport for Z. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Mrs X by paying her the cost of the bus pass from the date she made her application for free transport or the cost of her actual fares whichever is the higher.

Summary: The complainant, Mrs X, says the Council failed to act promptly when arranging an education placement for her brother, who is a looked after child. She says the Council failed in its duty as a corporate parent, including a failure to provide education. The Council is at fault. The Ombudsman has made recommendations to remedy the fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot and should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about children’s services’ involvement with his family, because the issues are tied up with the court’s decision about his child’s welfare, and other bodies are better placed to consider specific issues he has raised.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain that the Council made derogatory comments about them in 2006 which they only found out about in 2016. The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint because the time that has elapsed makes it unlikely that we could investigate satisfactorily. In addition, the matters at the heart of the complaint have previously been investigated by both the Council and the Ombudsman.

Summary: On the evidence currently available, the Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a children services social worker’s views. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to tell the Court of her views in ongoing Court proceedings and we cannot investigate the evidence the officer gives the Court.

Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council’s decision to refuse school transport provision on the basis the school attended was parental choice. This caused the complainant a financial injustice. The Ombudsman recommended the Council pay the complainant a mileage allowance, backdated to when her son first started secondary school.

Summary: Mr F complains about the way the Council dealt with his application for a personal transport budget for his daughter’s school transport. The Ombudsman has found fault. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreed to backdate the personal budget awarded, clarify its policy and make a payment to acknowledge the time and trouble Mr F has gone to in pursuing his complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a referral made by his daughter’s School to the Council’s Children’s Services. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council for acting on the referral. And Mr X may go to the Information Commissioner about an alleged data breach.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s Education Welfare Officer. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with indirect contact arrangements with his children. It did not send him some minutes of meetings when it said it would. It has apologised for this, which is a suitable remedy. The Ombudsman has not found evidence of further fault in the way the Council dealt with the arrangements.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not respond properly to safeguarding issues he raised about the independent school where he had been employed. There was no fault in how the Council responded to Mr B’s concerns.

Summary: Mrs W tried to get support from the Council to address her own care needs, as well as the needs of her children, but was unsuccessful. The Council is at fault for delaying the completion of an assessment, failing to incorporate her care needs within that assessment and failing to make a referral. It also delayed replying to her complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a token payment to acknowledge the time, trouble and distress it caused. It will also make changes to its complaints monitoring process.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued our investigation into Miss X’s complaint about inaccuracies in a child in need assessment for Y. This is because the Council has agreed to consider Miss X’s complaint through the statutory complaints procedure.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s role with respect to contact with his son. This is because the complaint has been made late. There are no good reasons for us to investigate now given the substantive decisions were made by the courts.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social work manager, because it is unlikely further investigation would achieve a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about his child’s care arrangements. A Court decided this and the law prevents us from looking at legal proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about Children’s Services involvement with their family. This is because the complaint is late.

Summary: I found no fault in the way the independent appeal panel considered Miss X’s appeal for a reception class place for her daughter.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to put a Child in Need plan in place for his son or provide appropriate services, and wrongly ended its involvement with the family. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s request for support for Y. The Council did not consider Y to be a Child in Need, and Mr X withdrew consent for contact by the Early Help team.

Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s decision to decline Mr F’s request for an investigation under the Children Act 1989. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of his child’s care arrangements. This is because it forms part of legal proceedings and the law prevents the Ombudsman from investigating such matters.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council dealt with her son, P, who has special educational needs. The Council was at fault as it did not hold an annual review of P’s statement of special educational needs and then delayed transferring this to an education, health and care plan. It failed to notify Ms X before visiting her and P at home and delayed referring P to speech and language therapy. It did not keep good records and communicated inaccurate information. These faults caused distress, confusion and time and trouble for Ms X, and distress and nine months delay in speech and language therapy for P. The Council has agreed to apologise, pay £200 to Ms X and £100 to P, and remind staff of the importance of good record-keeping.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council failed to provide suitable support to her son, F, who was out of school for a term and a half after returning to the UK. The Ombudsman has found fault with the Council. F missed the education he was entitled to. The Council should apologise, pay Ms B £1800 to remedy the injustice caused to F and £400 for the injustice caused to her. The Council should give training to relevant employees on their duties under the 1996 Education Act and Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to ensure her son received any education for over six months when he was medically unfit to attend school and had an Education Health and Care Plan. The Council failed to take proper action to ensure he received an education for part of the period. It has agreed a suitable remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Councils actions following a disclosure made by the daughter of the complainant’s partner. This is because the complaint is out of our jurisdiction as it relates to the Council’s response to actions within a school.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate this complaint from a parent about the way the Council dealt with his application and appeal for a place for his daughter at his preferred primary school. This is because the Council has now offered a place at the school, and we could not achieve a more favourable outcome than that.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint as it is about events which have been considered by a Court.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council unlawfully removed her children from her care and sent them to live with a relative. Ms X complains too late about events in 2007 and a court has since decided the arrangements for the children.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss M’s complaint about her children’s care. A Court recently considered and decided their care arrangements and we cannot investigate the Court’s decisions.

Summary: the Council has not provided evidence it considered Ms M’s son, B’s needs, or that it arranged as much education as he could cope with when he refused to attend school because of anxiety. I cannot, however, consider the education B missed once Ms M appealed B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan to the Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council has not satisfactorily supported her and her husband to maintain contact with their birth child (Child G) as required through the Special Guardianship Order (SGO). I have not found evidence of fault resulting in a significant injustice to Mrs X and so I have completed my investigation.

Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council dealt with reimbursement of his expenses in transporting his child to school. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault in the way the Council calculated the distances for which reimbursement will be made. There was minor fault by the Council when it reverted to its usual mileage rate after the child changed schools, without considering and explaining the available discretion to continue paying a higher rate it had previously agreed. The Council has apologised and no further remedy is necessary.

Summary: Mr F complains the Council has not taken action to remedy his upheld complaint. The Ombudsman has found delay causing frustration and distress. The remedy already offered by the Council is proportionate and appropriate.

Summary: Mr X complains about a child and family assessment carried out by the Council, which included his son Y. He complains about the process and the content of the report. There was no fault in the way the Council investigated Mr X’s complaint about this through its complaints procedure. The Independent investigation found evidence of fault and offered a suitable remedy for the injustice to Mr X. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the content of the report as this was used as part of court proceedings.

Summary: There was fault by the Council’s children’s services department in its dealings with the complainant following the breakdown of her marriage. However, the injustice caused to Ms X through fault by the Council is not so great that the Ombudsman would be likely to recommend a remedy.

Summary: The Council has already accepted that it failed to complete a safeguarding investigation into Mr B’s family in line with government guidance. It maintains its view that it was right to start the investigation but accepts that the faults identified have caused Mr B injustice. It has already apologised to Mr B, made procedural recommendations and offered him £1,000. These are suitable remedies. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not made any further recommendations.

Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain the Council’s remedy for their complaint about adoption services was unsuitable. They also complain the final adjudication to the complaint was inconsistent with findings made at earlier stages of the investigation. The Ombudsman has found some fault in the Council’s complaints investigation, however, on balance we do not consider any further remedy is required.

Summary: The Council failed to transition Ms X’s son, Y, to an Education Health and Care Plan within its own timescales. During this time Y was out of school, however, his school made every effort to reintegrate him. While Y has missed out on special educational needs provision I cannot say this is as result of fault by the Council. The Council has apologised for the delay and already taken steps to improve its transition processes.

Summary: Mr X complained there was fault in the way the Council dealt with child protection issues concerning his children. I found there was some limited fault in the council’s explanation or events and recording of some reports it received. However, I found overall the Council’s decisions in this case were ones it was entitled to reach in a complex case. I found no significant fault.

Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault with the Trust’s management of Mr X’s risk of self-harm. The missed opportunity led to Mr X’s raised anxiety and distress. The Council has already found fault in its own investigation, and it has provided a suitable remedy to Mr X.

Summary: Mr, Mrs and Ms B say they were not offered an adequate remedy following a child protection matter. There is evidence of fault and the Council has been asked to apologise, amend its procedures and make a payment to the family.

Summary: There was no fault by the appeal panel when it did not uphold Mr B’s school transport appeal. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not challenge the decision. The stage one review process could have been clearer but no further remedy is needed because the Council has already apologised and made changes to its process.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council reached its decision to refuse Ms X’s application to defer admission to Reception for her summer born son. It failed to properly record its Panel’s decision making and there were faults in its Starting Primary School brochure. The Council has already taken satisfactory action to address this.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to ensure a disabled pupil received the educational support to which she was entitled. There was also fault in its communications with her mother and in its complaint handling. The Council has accepted fault and offered a satisfactory remedy of an apology and financial payment.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her daughter with transport to school. Following a successful appeal Mrs X’s daughter now receives transport assistance. An investigation by the Ombudsman could not achieve anything more for Mrs X.

Summary: The Council accepted there was fault in the way it conducted a child protection investigation and offered a suitable remedy for the injustice this caused.

Summary: There was some fault by the Council in the way it dealt with Mr X during a custody dispute with his ex-partner. But its actions are sufficient to remedy the injustice caused and the most serious matters are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as they have been considered by the courts.

Summary: The Council has satisfactorily complied with the recommendations made by a Stage 3 Panel for a complaint about Children’s Services. The financial remedy offered by the Council is appropriate and the Ombudsman cannot achieve more for the Complainants.

Summary: The Council made some administrative errors in dealing with Miss X, but the remedy it offered is enough to remedy the injustice this caused. A court decided where her daughter Y should live, so the substantive matters Miss X complains of are thus outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint that the Council would not accept a complaint from the complainant. This is because the Council is now dealing with the complaint.

Summary: There was no fault in the way an independent school admission appeals panel reached its decision on a primary school appeal. The Panel failed to send the reasons for its refusal of the appeal within five school days. Although the delay was fault it did not cause a significant injustice. The Council has reviewed its processes with a view to prevent such delays in future.

Summary: The Council took account of the Independent Review Mechanism’s decision when it decided to de-register Mr B and Ms C as foster carers even though it did not follow its recommendations. There is no evidence of fault in the way it made this decision and therefore the Ombudsman will not challenge this decision. The Council was at fault when it did not pay Mr B and Ms C the appropriate fostering fees but it has already offered an appropriate remedy.

Summary: The Council was at fault for providing inaccurate information to a child protection conference. However, the information was not decisive to the child protection plan, and the Council has acted since to ensure the records clearly reflect that the information was inaccurate. As a result, the Council has already remedied Mr B’s injustice.

Summary: The Council’s failure to properly record the panel’s consideration of Mr X’s appeal and the reasons for its decision amounts to fault. The Council has agreed to remedy this by offering a fresh appeal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with the complainant’s children through its safeguarding procedures. This is because the Council has upheld much of the complaint, and the Council and the complainant have agreed to a meeting to resolve any outstanding issues.

Summary: Miss X’s appeal for a school place was affected by fault. This means she cannot be sure the independent panel properly considered her appeal. The School has agreed to arrange a fresh appeal and to change its procedures.