Summary: Mrs B complained to us in 2016 about the Council’s decision to refuse her younger daughter, C, home to school transport to the secondary school that she attends (reference: 16 008 920). We found that the Council’s policy did not comply with the Home to school travel and transport guidance, and it should have offered C home to school transport. The Council agreed to provide home to school transport for C to her present school from the date of our decision; reimburse Mrs B for the actual home to school transport costs she incurred for C from September 2016 (up to a maximum of £700); and maintain its current Home to School Transport Policy for the present but review it within three months in light of our guidance. Mrs B complains that the Council has failed to carry out the agreed actions.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delays in assessing her child’s special educational needs. We cannot assess any injustice to her and her child until the result of a Tribunal appeal is known.
Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s involvement with her and her daughter C, who has a disability. There are ongoing court proceedings relating to C. The Ombudsman has discontinued its investigation as it cannot investigate matters that are being considered in court.
Summary: Ms X complains of failings by the Council causing her son, Y to lose education. There was fault by the Council, though the latter part of the period when Y was without education is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X £1200 for lost education.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A’s complaint that the Council is at fault in refusing her application and appeal for free home to school transport for her daughter. It is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.
Summary: Since Ms M’s children were taken into care, she has been diagnosed with autism. She complains that the Council has not reassessed her since then. She also complains about the arrangements in place for contact with her children. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. Unless the Council’s intentions for the children change, there is no obvious reason why a further assessment is needed. The Ombudsman cannot comment on the basis for the children being taken into care or their contact arrangements as these are primarily matters for the court
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaints about the Council seeking a “barring order” and about a social worker. The first complaint is about court proceedings and is therefore out of jurisdiction. The second complaint would be better referred to the social worker’s professional body.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with her daughter’s disclosure of sexual abuse. He would be unlikely to find fault with the social worker’s actions and could not therefore question her judgement. Neither could he provide the outcome Ms M seeks.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children services response to his reports of the care his children receive from their mother. It is unlikely our investigation will achieve more than a new assessment which the Council is already undertaking.
Summary: It was Mrs B’s decision to withdraw C from school in April 2017, and to stop her returning to school. However, the Council was at fault for failing to arrange home tuition when it accepted that C could not attend school full-time because of her health needs. It was also at fault for a delay in issuing C’s EHC plan. It has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and pay her £900 to recognise C’s injustice.
Summary: Mr P complains the Council has not provided the goods and services that his son, Q, requires. Mr P is responsible for providing Q with those services as Q is being electively home educated. There is no evidence of Council fault.
Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s response to his concerns about a school and its decision to terminate a foster placement. The Ombudsman has not investigated the complaint relating to the school as this is outside of his jurisdiction. The Ombudsman agrees with the Council’s investigation into the other complaints. The investigation said that there was no fault in the Council’s actions except that the Council should have informed the independent reviewing officer earlier and should have held a review meeting before deciding to change the children’s placement. The Council has apologised for this and this is an appropriate remedy.
Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s investigation into safeguarding concerns about a school. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation as it is outside of his jurisdiction and is out of time.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council wrongly took her child from her care and failed to facilitate contact following a court order. The case is subject to court proceedings and the issues she raises are more appropriate for consideration by the court.
Summary: Mrs F complains the Council delayed issuing an amended Education Health and Care Plan for her son, and delayed responding to her complaint. The Ombudsman has found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs F.
Summary: Mr Q complains about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding concern raised by his children’s school. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the delay in telling Mr Q of the outcome of the case. This caused Mr Q and his family distress which was avoidable. The Council has accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendation that it pay Mr Q £300 to remedy the distress caused. The Ombudsman also finds fault with how the Council handled the safeguarding concern but these faults did not cause any significant injustice.
Summary: Mr X complains the Council has not remedied failings identified through the statutory children’s complaints procedure, causing him financial loss and stress. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. We recommend the Council takes action; pays Mr X the amount he should have received as a family and friends foster carer and; pays Mr X £900 for stress, time and trouble.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs K’s complaint the Council failed to act on a child protection matter in 2017 or to comply with a court order made later. There is no fault by the Council in the original incident because it was unaware of it. Later matters were either the subject of court action we cannot investigate, or subject to court supervision so it would be reasonable to expect Mrs K to take them back to court.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the education and social care support the Council provided to her and her child. The events are 3 to 16 years old. There are no compelling reasons not to apply the late complaint rule.
Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he does not have consent from those most directly affected to complain on their behalf. If he did, we would still not investigate because the Information Commissioner is better placed to do so.
Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s production of a Court report. This is because it forms part of legal proceedings and the law prevents us from investigating such matters.
Summary: Miss F complains about the way the Council took child protection action in respect of child X, for whom she was a special guardian. The Council has accepted some fault in the way it handled child protection action. It has apologised and offered a financial remedy. This is a proportionate and appropriate response. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the rest of the Council’s actions.
Summary: The complainant was concerned about the Council’s support package to help her care for her two grandchildren, under her Special Guardianship Order. There has been some delay by the Council in reviewing the support but this has been caused, in part, by the continued uncertainty about whether the complainant would remain living in the area of another council. The complainant has now decided to stay put, so the Council has agreed, as a way of resolving this complaint, to reassess the complainant’s support package and to report back to the Ombudsman, within two months, about what additional services it will provide.
Summary: The Council was not at fault for reducing Ms B’s special guardianship allowance. It complied with Regulations by having regard to a comparable fostering allowance, but by not duplicating other benefits Ms B receives. The Council was, however, at fault for failing to properly respond to Ms B’s request for further information for three months in 2018. It has already apologised for the delay, so does not need to take further action.
Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to correct inaccurate information about her in a case file. She also says the Council failed to handle her complaint properly, causing her distress. The Council was at fault. Its failure to properly record its actions or amend its records caused Mrs X an injustice. The Council accepts it made mistakes and says it is improving its processes. The Ombudsman has made further recommendations.
Summary: The Council took too long to deal with Miss M’s complaint about social care provision for her children, T and L. They each have disabilities. The Ombudsman asked the Council to apologise to Miss M, and carry out a child and family assessment. The Council has completed the assessment. The Council has agreed pay Miss M £250 for the delay in dealing with her complaint.
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.
