Summary: Mr B complains the Council has failed to ensure his son C received the provision detailed in his Education, Health and Care plan. He also complains it failed to arrange suitable alternative provision whilst C was out of mainstream education.

Summary: the Council delayed putting in place part of Ms D’s son’s education, health and care plan and failed to provide some of the support flexibly as set out in the plan. Ms D’s son will not miss out on specialist provision as the Council intends to make the hours up. However, he has not been able to access some support as he should have done. That left him feeling unable to attend after-school revision sessions. An apology, reminder to the school about the provision Ms D’s son is entitled to and agreement to make up the missing specialist tuition hours by the end of the academic year is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms C complains about the support and educational provision the Council has made for her son X over the last three years. She says she has been left with no support or education for X who is now 15. She says that X has increasing needs and is difficult to support and manage. This has impacted on the whole family who have been involved in trying to support and manage X’s behaviour. The Council failed to ensure that X’s educational and social care needs were being met from late 2015. It should apologise to Ms C for its failings and make a payment to X.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has admitted other children to his preferred school ahead of his own. It is unlikely we could effectively investigate the complaint or achieve any worthwhile outcome for Mr X. If he still wants a place for his child he may apply for the September 2019 admissions round.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to support the placement of a young person with her family and acted wrongly in de-registering them, causing worry and questioning her professional judgment. There was fault by the Council in some matters, but this did not cause injustice to Mrs X or her family.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council handled a safeguarding referral made by the mother of his daughter’s boyfriend. He says the assessment it subsequently conducted failed to consider key evidence and neither his views nor those of his family were listened to. Similarly, he is concerned it did not properly investigate concerns he reported about his daughter’s welfare. The Ombudsman has found the Council was not at fault because its assessment took account of the evidence that was relevant to the case and focussed on the best interests of Mr X’s daughter. It also addressed the concerns he raised and found there was no risk to his daughter.

Summary: Ms M’s son, B, has missed a considerable amount of education following his permanent exclusion from school in June 2017, but this is not the result of fault by the Council. The Council offered B a place at a Pupil Referral Unit, but Ms M chose to apply for school places instead. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the Council’s offer.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a debt accrued for school meals and recovery action by the Council. This is because we have no powers to consider what happens in schools. The complaint is also late and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s Education Appeal Panel’s decision to refuse her appeal for transport to school for her disabled child, P. The Council was not at fault. It considered Ms X’s submission but P did not meet the eligibility criteria as he does not attend the nearest suitable school which had places available.

Summary: Ms M complains the Council refused her application for school transport for her daughter, G. G has moved schools since Ms M complained. I do not intend to investigate Ms M’s complaint about transport to the school G no longer attends. Ms M should make a fresh application to the Council for transport to G’s new school.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the panel reached its decision.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot and should not investigate Ms J’s complaint about the Council’s actions in respect of court action involving her children. This is because the complaint is about what happened in court, and issues which it would have been reasonable to raise in court.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the Council’s decision that her son must enter Year 1 rather than Reception when he reaches compulsory school age. There was no fault in how the Council made the decision about the year group in which he should start but the letter giving the final decision did not provide as full an explanation as it should.

Summary: the Council’s travel assistance policy for post-16 students and its decisions to refuse Ms M’s application for Mr B’s transport and her subsequent appeals are flawed. The Council has agreed to revise its policy, apologise and make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the disruption to Mr B’s education before the Council agreed to arrange his college transport.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council has provided misleading information to a court and has failed to act in his son’s interests. This is because the complaint relates to matters which have been, or can be, raised in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss A’s complaint that the actions of a social worker prevented her from attending a court hearing. This is because we cannot investigate what happens in court.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly research an art course it placed her son on. She says that, as a result, she was forced into debt to pay for materials. She also says the course did not provide the promised specification and her son has had to repeat the work again. She says this caused her and her son an injustice. She also complains about the Council’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate how an educational setting used its funding, as the law prevents us doing so, nor why the Council paid funding to the school.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about harm caused to her while at school. We cannot investigate the school’s actions. And it is reasonable to expect her to apply to Court for compensation for any damage caused to her by the Council’s liability.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide disabled adaptations for her son, Z, did not take action when she complained her neighbour was abusing Z and failed to provide out of school activities for Z as specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman upholds the complaint from Ms X about the Council’s failure to investigate her complaint. The Council has failed to comply with its legal duties to investigate complaints. This has caused Ms X avoidable delay in receiving a response to the complaints she has made. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X, remind officers of their legal duties, and carry out an investigation once court proceedings have ended.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council failed to pay sufficient compensation for the injustice caused by fault in the way it dealt with provision of support for her son, C. The Council has agreed to pay £3100.

Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council handled a child protection intervention, and how it dealt with his complaints about the matter. We have found fault in how the Council handled Mr B’s complaints and the Council have agreed to pay a financial remedy for the injustice this caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint that the Council has not involved him in decisions made about his son. This is because it is unlikely we would find evidence of fault causing Mr J significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services faults in the removal of his children from his care. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different remedy than already offered.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms J’s complaint about the Council’s decision to take her grandchildren into care, and the conduct of officers in court. This is because the law does not let us investigate what happened in court, and we cannot achieve the outcome Ms J wants if we investigate those matters not caught by this restriction.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the involvement of the Council’s social services with the complainant’s family. This is because the issues have been considered as part of court proceedings, and are out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot and should not investigate Ms J’s complaint about children’s services’ involvement with her family, because the law does not let us investigate what happens in court, and it would be reasonable for Ms J to raise her concerns in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school. This is because the School is an Academy and its actions are out of jurisdiction for the Ombudsman.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because we cannot investigate matters which have not been remedied by an appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council failed to engage with him through the child protection process. It also delayed dealing with his complaints when he made them. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy for time, trouble and distress and to change its procedures.