Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with the provision in her daughter’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan and her request for a change of school. She also complained that the Council failed to ensure her daughter received a full-time education. The Council did not take enough action to ensure her daughter received full-time education. It has agreed a suitable remedy including arrangements to ensure suitable education for the rest of the school year and a payment to recognise missed education.

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

Summary: Mr B complained the Council had failed to provide sufficient care for his child when moving from primary to secondary education and having to change existing providers because of this. When he made complaints the Council did not address them properly. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to make a payment for time and trouble and distress and to ensure Mr B’s child has not lost any services as a result of the change. The Council has also agreed to change its procedures.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the complainants’ children being taken into care. This is because the decisions were made by a court, and are therefore out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint from a parent about a school admission appeal panel hearing in her daughter’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel which affected the outcome of the appeal.

Summary: The Council was not responsible for Mr B leaving his job. Although it arranged a contact session between Mr B and his son during Mr B’s working hours – which it had agreed not to do – the decision to leave the job rather than request a rearrangement of the contact session was Mr B’s alone. As a result, the Ombudsman has not found fault with the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the information he says a children services officer told him the Council had. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s support to them as foster carers and that it ignored the Independent Review Mechanism panel’s recommendation to support their continued registration. There was fault in the Council’s support for Mr and Mrs X as foster carers. It has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs X £500 as remedy for injustice caused by this fault. There was no administrative fault in how it made its decision to deregister the couple, having considered the Independent Review Mechanism’s recommendations.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to consider her application and appeal for home to school transport for her son properly. The Council was at fault in the way it considered the application and appeal. Its home to school transport policy is flawed. It has agreed to arrange a fresh appeal hearing and review and revise its policy.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her school admissions applications for her two children and her complaint about this matter. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate whether an Education Health and Care Plan meets Mrs X’s child’s needs as a Tribunal is deciding this. We will not investigate the alleged Council fault before the Tribunal appeal, as it is not possible to find out what has been missed until the Tribunal decision is known.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council is acting unfairly in paying him and his wife a lower fee as family and friends foster carers than it would if they were non-connected foster carers. The Ombudsman finds that the Council is not paying them a lower fee because of their connection to the child, and so it is not at fault. The difference in fees is based on other criteria such as skills, training and the range of placements foster carers are available to take. There was fault in the way the Council described its policy before 2018 and in the information given to Mr X. The Council has agreed to apologise to him and clarify its position.

Summary: Mrs B complained about the Council’s refusal to provide transport for her son to attend short breaks at out-of-borough placement, following a reduction in the opening hours of the in-borough provision. We have found fault with the Council’s decision not to pay for the transport and the way in which it dealt with the complaint. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B £500.

Summary: Mr and Mrs C complain their son, ‘D’, has not received an outreach or befriending service since August 2017, despite this being part of his care plan. We do not find fault with this, as while D has not received this service we consider the Council has acted reasonably to support him in this time. However, we do uphold the complaint because of fault in the Council’s complaint handling causing delay and putting Mr and Mrs C to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has agreed action to remedy that injustice detailed at the end of this statement.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision not to renew their child, A’s blue badge. Mr and Mrs X said the Council failed to properly consider A’s autism in making its decision. The Council was not at fault. It considered A’s autism, applied the relevant guidance correctly and decided A did not meet the criteria for a blue badge. The Department for Transport is releasing new blue badge guidance during 2019 which would contain specific criteria for people with ‘hidden disabilities’ such as autism. However, we cannot criticise the Council for failing to consider unpublished government guidance.

Summary: Miss C complains the Council disclosed personal and sensitive information to her son. The Council accepts that it should have spoken to Miss C first and has already apologised for this. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress caused to Miss C and her son.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the support offered to the complainant regarding the adoption of her son. This is because the complaint is made late, and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council contacting a family member to raise safeguarding concerns. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the conduct of a social worker and reports they produced for the Court. This is because the complaint is outside our jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about comments made by a social worker in a report. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and because it is unlikely the Ombudsman could add to the Council’s response.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a children services report on her ability to care for her grandchild. The report forms part of legal proceedings and the law prevents us from investigating legal proceedings.