Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council did not amend an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for her son. There was no fault by the Council because it did not amend the EHCP. There was fault by the Council because of unreasonable delay in completing the EHCP. This fault did not cause Mrs X’s son significant injustice to warrant further pursuit of the complaint by the Ombudsman.

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her son Y and states the Council failed to follow the correct procedures when it issued his Education, Health and Care plan in September 2017. She also complains it did not ensure the provision detailed in the plan was provided, and says it again failed to follow procedure after an annual review of the plan was conducted in February 2018. Moreover, she complains about the way the Council handled her complaint about these matters. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for not ensuring the annual review process was completed in line with the statutory guidance and for the way it administered the Panel which decided whether Y should attend a new educational placement. We have also found it was at fault for the way it handled Mrs X’s complaint about these matters. These faults created uncertainty for Y’s education and caused Mrs X time and trouble. Therefore, the Council has agreed to make a small payment to them both to remedy this injustice, and deliver a brief to its staff to ensure the faults identified do not reoccur.

Summary: The Council delayed paying school fees while it determined whether it or another authority was responsible, but there was no significant fault in this. There was some fault in the delay in transferring the complainant’s children to Education, Health and Care plans, but this fault did not cause an injustice. For this reason, the Ombudsman has completed his investigation.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council amended her son, Y’s Education Health and Care Plan (EHC plan) without consulting her and has failed to provide suitable full-time education for Y this academic year. Ms X also complains a social worker’s assessment of her son in 2018 wrongly includes information about another person who is unrelated to her or her son. The Council’s failure to notify and consult Ms X in relation to changes to Y’s EHC plan amounts to fault. The Council’s inclusion of an unrelated third party’s details in Y’s records also amounts to fault, as does its failure to correct this error. These faults have not caused Ms X a significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint that the Council is not taking action to protect his daughter, D, from harm while she is in the care of a special guardian. This is because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of information the Council gave a Court. This is part of legal proceedings and the law prevents us from investigating legal proceedings.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about information he says the Council told a Court, and holds, about him. We cannot investigate legal proceedings and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider whether the Council holds accurate information.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s court report. We cannot investigate what happened in court including the content of the report.

Summary: Ms B is a foster carer. She complains about the Council’s failure to provide child C with advanced status earlier. The Council has largely remedied the fault by agreeing to pay Ms B the fees which she would have been paid, but it should apologise to Ms B and pay her £200 to acknowledge the distress she suffered.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has wrongly refused her request for free school transport for her daughters. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered Mrs X’s request for free school transport for her daughters.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Council delay in an Education Health and Care Plan processes. We cannot discover the extent of any injustice until a Tribunal process finishes.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the way an entrance test for a grammar school was run. This is because the school in question is an academy school, and the law prevents us from investigating complaints about academies. There is also no sign of fault by the Council regarding this matter.

Summary: The complaint concerns accommodation the Council provided for Ms B and her family. We found fault with the Council’s consideration of the accommodation’s distance from Barnet and with the Council’s handling of some problems at the accommodation. The faults caused uncertainty and a sense of missed opportunity and some inconvenient living conditions. The Council agreed our recommendations to put matters right, including apologising, paying Ms B £644 and reviewing what happened. We did not uphold other parts of the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council made matters worse between him and his stepson following an altercation. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because there is no significant injustice stemming from the Council’s actions and because an investigation could not achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the professionalism of a social worker. The Health and Care Professions Council is better suited to do so.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A’s complaint that the Council has failed to act professionally and in the best interests of her daughter. It would be reasonable for Miss A to take the matter to court.

Summary: Ms X says the Council did not make the provision set out in her son’s education, health and care plan; it failed to review the plan and did not properly plan his transition to adulthood. There was fault by the Council because of a delay in reviewing Ms X’s son’s plan in 2018 as well as poor transition planning. However, the identified fault did not cause Ms X’s son an injustice that warrants further pursuit of the complaint by the Ombudsman.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault in the way a school admission appeal panel considered an appeal for a secondary school place.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr and Mrs J’s complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral involving their son. This is because the courts are better placed to resolve the issue of contact with their grandchildren.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about her child’s school and the way the Council has dealt with her concerns. This is because the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction or discretion to investigate the matters complained about.

Summary: the Council took 44 weeks too long to issue B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and failed to properly consider his social care needs when Mrs M asked for help. The Council has accepted my recommendations to address the injustice this caused.

Summary: the Council’s travel assistance policy for post-16 students, and its decision on Mrs M’s application, are flawed. The Council has agreed to revise its policy and re-make its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement in the running of a school. This is because the law prevents the Ombudsman from considering complaints about the internal management of schools.

Summary: the Council has investigated Mr F’s complaint at all three stages of the statutory children’s services complaints procedure. Further investigation by the Ombudsman would not add anything or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision not to provide accommodation for her and her son on the basis that her son could stay with his father while she looks for accommodation. She says the decision was unfair as it was based on a flawed social work assessment. The Ombudsman finds that the assessment was carried out properly. Without evidence of fault he cannot question the Council’s decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about the accuracy of the Council’s records, because this is a matter for the Information Commissioner.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the level of foster care payments the Council paid her. The events are from three years ago and she has not provided compelling enough reasons why it has taken her so long to complain.

Summary: The Council has agreed to put Mr J’s complaint, about the Council’s involvement with his family, through the statutory complaints procedure for complaints about children’s services. So the Ombudsman should not consider the matter further at this stage.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot and should not investigate Ms J’s complaint about children’s services’ involvement with her family, because the issues are tied up with the court’s decision about the children’s welfare.