Summary: Ms X complained the Council’s short break service failed to respond appropriately to her request for direct payments to support her family and son. The Council failed to provide her with timely and appropriate support. The Council has acted appropriately to recommendations from the statutory children’s complaint investigation into this complaint. The Council has agreed to provide the Ombudsman and Ms X with a summary of the outcome of its still ongoing review into services for disabled children once this is complete.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council will not let him and his wife see their children without meeting with the Council first. Mr X also complained the Council refuses to consider his complaint at stage 2 of its procedures. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X says the Council failed to take meaningful action or provide support to their adopted daughter following incidents of self-harm. There was fault by the Council because it did not assess the support needs of Mr and Mrs X and their daughter. The Council agreed a financial remedy to reflect the injustice suffered by the family in consequence of this fault.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s decision to refuse to provide free school transport to her son’s chosen school. Mrs B says this meant she had to transfer her son to a different school. The Council was not at fault for the matters complained about. The Council’s decision was in line with its policy, which was made clear to parents. So, we have completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed transferring her son’s Statement of Special Educational Needs to an Education and Health Care plan, delayed in allocating a school place and failed to arrange alternative educational provision for periods when he was out of school. The Council was at fault for not ensuring her son was educated between May 2017 and January 2018. It should pay Ms X £1,500 to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr and Mrs P complain the Council has refused their request for home to school transport for their daughter, D. The Council responded through its complaints procedure and has not explained how it calculated the distance to D’s school. The Council has agreed to provide this information to Mr and Mrs D and invite them to use the Council’s appeal process.

Summary: Mr X has complained about the Council’s decision to refuse free transport to and from school for his daughter. There is no evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs A complains of fault in the way the Council made arrangements for the care of her great-grandchildren for the Christmas period and in what it recorded about her granddaughter, the children’s mother. She says this has caused them serious distress. There was some fault by the Council in what it recorded that caused the family distress, though this fault would not have led to different actions. The Council will pay Mrs A and her granddaughter a total of £650 and place a copy of this decision on the children’s records.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the contents of a children’s social care report about Mr B’s family which was completed in 2015. We cannot investigate matters which have been before the courts, will not investigate a council report which has not caused significant injustice to Mr B otherwise, and cannot achieve the results Mr B wants from his complaint so it does not warrant investigating.

Summary: Mr A complains about the way the Council handled a referral to its Children’s Services Department about his daughter. The Ombudsman has investigated whether the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the stage two statutory investigation of Mr A’s complaint. We have found the Council did this and the remedies it offered Mr A were proportionate to the injustice caused by the faults identified in the investigation report.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council has not reimbursed legal costs after forcing them to seek a child arrangement order. There is no evidence the Council forced Mr and Mrs X to take court action. Mr and Mrs X’s grandchildren came to live with them as the result of a private arrangement with their daughter.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that the Council was at fault in declining her application and appeal for school transport for her daughter. It is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A’s complaint that the Council has refused her application and appeal for a school place for her son. It is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that the Council has refused her application and appeal for a school place for her son. It is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mr F complains there were failings by the Council during a child protection investigation. We uphold the complaint, agreeing with the findings of an independent investigation undertaken previously into Mr F’s concerns which found some errors in its case management and record keeping. We consider the Council acted on the findings of that investigation and has remedied Mr F’s injustice. So, we do not make further criticisms nor ask the Council to take further action to remedy the complaint.

Summary: Mrs N has reported her concerns for her neighbour’s children to the Council. She complains the Council has not done anything to protect the children. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council has taken Mrs N’s concerns seriously.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council disclosed her identity to the parent of a child about whom she made a safeguarding referral. She says this has led to reprisals. While we cannot say who has damaged her property and the Council is not responsible for the criminal actions of third parties, the location of her home suggests it is more likely than not that she has been deliberately targeted by someone. The Council will install CCTV at her property and pay her £250 for the avoidable anxiety releasing her details has caused her. It has also offered further remedy beyond that we have recommended.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to respond properly to reports that she was being harmed and to act to protect her when she was known to social services as a child, which left her to suffer unnecessary harm. The Council will investigate the complaint, so the Ombudsman’s investigation is discontinued.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the content of a Section 7 report. This is because the complaint is outside our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate.

Summary: Ms M complains her daughter, D, did not receive the support in her EHC Plan in her final year of school, and did not have an EHC Plan for her first year at college. I find no fault with the support D received at school, but delay by the Council meant D did not have a final EHC Plan in time for her transfer to college. I have recommended a remedy.

Summary: the Council should have made alternative arrangements for B’s education following a referral by his school in December 2017. The Council has agreed to make a payment for the education B missed.

Summary: there was no fault in the appeal panel’s decision to refuse Mrs M’s request for school transport for her son, B. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school for her son. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) hearing the appeal made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint that the Council did not protect his daughter from harm, because events happened too long ago, and we cannot investigate what happened in court.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to respond to concerns about the special educational provision her grandchild received at a previous primary school. The Ombudsman has stopped investigating the complaint because what they complain about happened too long ago and she can pursue her requests for information through the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide SEN support for her daughter and then failed to provide the remedy offered. She also complains of problems experienced since. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation. This is because the Council has remedied the initial complaint and because it has not yet had the opportunity to investigate recent issues.

Summary: The Ombudsman has no reason investigate this complaint from a parent about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is no sign that any fault in the appeal process caused the parent a significant injustice.

Summary: A parent complained that the Council did not notify him about when he needed to apply for a secondary school place for his daughter. But the Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this matter because there is no sign of fault by the Council.

Summary: The complainants allege that the Council, the Hospital and the Trust made unsubstantiated allegations about their care of their daughter who has significant mental health difficulties and, at the time of the events of this complaint, was an inpatient in an adolescent psychiatric unit. They also complain that their daughter’s allegation of assault by a carer at the unit was not considered properly. The Ombudsmen have found fault causing injustice. The agencies have accepted the Ombudsmen’s findings and the recommendations to remedy the complaint and to improve future practice.