Summary: Mrs X complained about delay and other fault in producing an Education Health and Care Plan for her son and failure to provide alternative education for him when he was out of school. The Ombudsman finds that there was delay, and the Council failed to ensure the child received education when he was out of school. The Council has agreed to a suitable remedy including a payment for lost education and a review of procedures.

Summary: Ms X complains about her dealings with the Council regarding her daughter’s special education needs. There was unreasonable delay by the Council in issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan for daughter in July 2017. The Council agreed to a financial remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X and her daughter.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse her child home to school transport. The Ombudsman has found the Council to be at fault because it did not offer Mrs X a chance to present her case verbally. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to hold a further hearing in line with the statutory guidance and review its policy.

Summary: Mrs X complains the school transport the Council provides for her daughter (D) and son (S) is unsuitable. She says because of their Special Educational Needs, they require an escort. The Council has provided evidence to show it has considered the children’s needs and has offered transitional arrangements to Mrs X. There is no fault in the Council’s actions and we do not uphold Mrs X’s complaint.

Summary: Mrs W complained the Council failed to offer home to school transport to her youngest child, C, even though her older child, B, received it. She appealed the Council’s decision but was unsuccessful in achieving the outcome she wanted. There is no evidence of Council fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her son with post 16 transport to college. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in how the decision was reached and so we cannot question its merits.

Summary: Miss X complains about the way the Council dealt with a child protection referral made in February 2017 about her ex-partner, who is the father of her child. She also complains about the way her concerns about this matter were investigated. The Ombudsman has found the Council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the stage two investigation and stage three panel which considered her complaint. It has acknowledged its faults and accepts these faults caused Miss X some injustice, however it has already acted to remedy this injustice and is making improvements to prevent the faults identified from reoccurring. We have found this is sufficient and no further action should be taken.

Summary: There is no evidence of unreasonable delay by the Council in progressing Ms X’s application to become a foster carer. The Council’s application form lacked clarity about how many referees Ms X needed to provide but the Council has addressed this by introducing a new form. The Council delayed in dealing with Ms X’s complaint which caused frustration and avoidable time and trouble to her which the Council has agreed to apologise for.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council failed to take suitable action when he raised concerns about his children’s welfare. However, we have not found fault with the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate part of Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about children services because it involves legal proceedings. We should not investigate the rest because there are other bodies better placed and we cannot achieve a meaningful remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot and should not investigate Mr J’s complaint that the Council’s original assessment of his family was flawed. This is because it is too tied up with what happened in court.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council’s school transport policy is flawed and the appeal panel is inconsistent in how it uses its discretion. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council misled the school transport appeal panel by giving it the wrong distance to his daughter’s nearest qualifying school. The Council is at fault. The Council has agreed to complete another review of Mr X’s application to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has changed the provision of home to school transport from a seat on a dedicated school bus to a pass to use on the local bus service. She says children often do not get a seat and this is dangerous. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely that further investigation will lead to a different outcome. And we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X is seeking.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s social services department in relation to the complainant’s family. This is because there are no issues in the complaint that are within jurisdiction or can be investigated. The substantive issues are about matters relating to court proceedings. Others are either made late, or have been previously considered.

Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s response to B’s allegations he was sexually assaulted by a teacher. The evidence shows the Council has taken Miss M’s concerns seriously.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council failed to provide her with information. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider her complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about information provided about a voluntary role with the Council. This is because it is too closely to the law which prevents the Ombudsman from investigating any matter linked to personnel and employment problems. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in not carrying out an individual assessment of eligibility for home to school transport on the grounds of special educational needs and mobility difficulties and in not providing for an independent panel to hear the appeal. The complainant’s child is now able to travel by public transport and has recently withdrawn their transport application. Recommendations are made for the Council to review inconsistencies between its published policy, its practice and the statutory guidance to prevent recurrence of similar fault in other cases.

Summary: On the evidence the Ombudsman has seen so far we will not investigate Mr 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 which has caused the alleged injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman has stopped investigating Miss B’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide special educational support for her sons, support from social services and its refusal to delete a report from its social care records. This is because the Council has agreed to consider the complaint under the statutory children’s social care complaints procedure.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint about the actions of children’s social care officers between 2016 and 2017. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate it now.

Summary: Mrs V said the Council failed to offer her son appropriate support when he was out of school. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to make a payment for missed educational provision and to apologise.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council did not properly investigate safeguarding concerns about school transport for her son. She says this has affected her son’s health and mental wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not consider there is fault by the Council.

Summary: Mrs X complained about delay in amending her son’s Education Health and Care Plan and failure to put the appropriate support in place. The Ombudsman finds that there was delay in amending the Plan and evidence of some failure to follow up concerns about the provision. The Council has agreed to apologise and review its procedures.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council carried out assessments for her son, Y, and carers assessments for her. She complained the Council ignored her and shared information after she removed consent. We found no fault with the council’s assessment decisions. However, there was some fault by the Council that warrants a remedy.

Summary: Miss B complained about how the Council dealt with various matters relating to her children. The Council was not at fault for the content of the majority of its recordings in this case. The Council wrongly shared Miss B’s address with an ex-partner which led to her experiencing distress and worry. The Council also failed to share minutes of meetings and made some inaccurate references in its documentation, although those references did not cause a specific injustice to Miss B. An apology, payment to Miss B, reminder to officers and action the Council has already taken is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr and Mrs F complain about the Council's decision to move their foster child, J, to new carers in February 2016. The Ombudsman has found no fault in the decision to end the placement. There was fault causing injustice by the Council not telling Mr and Mrs F the outcome of two safeguarding investigations; not arranging for them to say goodbye to J; and not sending a letter explaining the decision to move J. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr and Mrs F to acknowledge the distress caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an investigation by the Council into concerns regarding child protection. This is because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision to investigate the concerns, and the additional issue of data protection should be considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint, about the way officers spoke to him during a phone call, and the Council’s handling of his complaint. This is because further investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection team’s actions. The Court is considering the child involved’s care. The complaint is either covered by those proceedings or too closely related to it to be suitable for us to investigate.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a Court report. This forms part of legal proceedings which the law prevents us from investigating. We are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy to the assessment offered by the Council in reply to her lack of support complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not follow the statutory procedure when it arranged the annual review of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Additionally, she complains it failed to provide him a suitable education in accordance with Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, and did not follow its own policy when it dealt with her complaint about these matters. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not completing the annual review process within the 12-month time limit. We have also found it was at fault for taking too long to arrange alternative educational provision and for not ensuring the full provision detailed in her son’s plan was given. This resulted in Mrs X incurring costs arranging alternative tuition and her son not receiving the full provision he was entitled to. Therefore, to remedy this injustice the Council has agreed to make a payment to them and apologise for its faults. It has also briefed its staff so they can learn from this complaint and ensure the faults identified do not reoccur.

Summary: Mr F complains about the Independent Appeal Panel’s decisions not to admit his children to Four Oaks Primary School. Fault in the Panel’s deliberations calls the decisions into question. The Governors have agreed to arrange a fresh panel to reconsider the appeals.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her application and appeals for school transport. This is because the Council has offered a financial remedy and agreed to arrange an appeal hearing. It is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman at this stage could achieve anything more.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that the school admission appeal panel for a foundation school was at fault in refusing her appeal for a school place for her daughter. It is unlikely we would find fault on the admission authority’s part.

Summary: Ms A is concerned that the Council has not properly considered her concerns about a child’s welfare. I have seen nothing to suggest that the Council has not responded properly to safeguard the child. However, neither the Council not the Ombudsman can share information about its actions as Ms A is not a suitable person to bring a complaint to the Ombudsman on behalf of the child because she does not have parental responsibility.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s complaints handling as we cannot investigate the reasons she complained to the Council. We should not investigate the Council’s response to her data questions as the Information Commissioner Office is better placed.