Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide his children with free transport to school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in how the Council has reached its decision and so we cannot question its merits.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A’s complaint that her son’s school has delayed responding to her appeals against decisions to exclude her son. The law says the Ombudsman cannot investigate what happens in schools.

Summary: The Ombudsmen found fault with the way a CCG managed the Children’s Continuing Care process for a child with severe disabilities. They recommended the CCG apologise for this fault and pay the complainants a financial remedy in recognition of the distress this caused them. They also found fault with the Council’s delayed assessment of the parents’ needs as carers. The Council agreed to apologise to the complainants. The Ombudsmen found no fault with the actions of a Trust involved with the child’s care.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about lack of contact with his children. The Council’s limited involvement with his family means it is unlikely we would find fault; and it would be reasonable for Mr J to go to court to resolve this issue.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s handling of her complaint about children social services. She complains the stage two investigation did not investigate her main complaint about a delivery protection plan and that it contained inaccurate information. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for wrongly signposting Ms X at the end of the stage two investigation. The Council has agreed to investigate Ms X’s complaint at stage three.

Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council managed contact arrangements between him and his children after they were taken into care. The Council was at fault because it failed to consider this complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete a stage two investigation of Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s 2017 assessment report on his family was inaccurate and biased against him. The Council has agreed to write to Mr X about his complaint and his criticisms of the report.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to consistently provide the school transport their son was legally entitled to from September 2016 until November 2017. The Ombudsman finds there was fault by the Council when it failed to organise an escort to accompany Mr and Mrs X’s son to school, instead leaving Mrs X no choice but to accompany him instead. The Council agreed with our recommendation it should apologise, pay a suitable financial remedy to Mr and Mrs X and take steps to ensure it makes learning from this case available to relevant staff members.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in its consideration of Ms B’s appeal against its refusal to provide home-to-school transport to her children. It correctly applied the law and fully considered its discretionary powers. As a result, I cannot question its decision.

Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of her daughter, Y and states the Council has failed to arrange suitable provision to meet her special educational needs. She also complains it did not address her concerns about this matter in a timely manner, if at all, and it failed to ensure Y was properly safeguarded whilst at school. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault for failing to ensure suitable alternative educational provision was given to Y between December 2015 and April 2016. It was also at fault for not following statutory guidance and taking too long to transfer Y’s Statement of Special Educational Needs to an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council’s faults resulted in Y losing educational provision therefore we recommend it makes a financial payment to her to remedy this injustice. We also recommend it apologises to her and her family for what happened. The Council has accepted our findings and will carry out our recommendations.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide her daughter with free transport to school. This is because the complaint is late and there are no good reasons for the Ombudsman to exercise its discretion to investigate.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the Council’s actions regarding allegations of abuse it received. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault with the actions taken by the Council to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a social worker disclosing information to the housing benefit department. This is because there is insufficient injustice flowing from the alleged fault and because the complainant has appealed to the tribunal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the school admission appeal panel for a Foundation school failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her daughter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the admission authority’s part.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide his child with a place at School Y. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused him to lose out on a school place.

Summary: Mr B complains about a number of errors in the way the Council dealt with a Child Protection Conference. The Council was at fault because it did not ensure information about Mr B breaching a court order was corrected and did not deal with Mr B’s complaint quickly enough. Mr B suffered distress because he did not know whether inaccurate information sent by the Council was still being relied on. The Council has apologised to Mr B and offered to pay Mr B £200 for his time and trouble because of the delays in dealing with his complaint. The Council should also pay Mr B £100 for the distress he suffered and take steps to correct any outstanding information that is wrong.

Summary: The Council was at fault when it carried out a transfer review to convert Mr Y’s SEN statement to an Education, Health and Care Plan. The significant delay, and poor communication with Mrs X, Mr Y’s mother, caused injustice. The Council has accepted our recommendations for a financial remedy and a review of procedures.

Summary: Mr D complains that the Council did not provide his daughter, Miss E, with support listed in her Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). The Council was at fault because it did not provide physiotherapy sessions and did not follow its complaints policy. Miss E did not receive the support she was entitled to for seven months. The Council should apologise and pay Miss E £675 for the loss of physiotherapy sessions, Mr D £100 for the time and trouble making his complaint and review its procedures.

Summary: Mrs C complains that the Council delayed placing her daughter in an appropriate school, which resulted in her missing out on special educational need (SEN) provision for a term. I have completed my investigation on the basis there was fault in the way the Council dealt with the review. The Council has agreed to offer a financial remedy to Mrs C.

Summary: The Ombudsmen found no fault with the way safeguarding concerns were dealt with by a Council, an Ambulance Trust and an NHS Trust. The Ombudsmen also found no fault by the Council in relation to it following child protection procedures.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of her disabled child, A. Ms X complained the Council had failed, since 2005 to provide adequate social care for A. The Council was at fault because it failed to consider the complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council agreed to complete a stage 2 investigation of Ms X’s complaints.

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 matter has been the subject of court proceedings.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about an application for a Blue Badge because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the school admission appeal panel failed to properly consider his appeal for a school place for his son. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the content of a court welfare report about his daughter and how the Council is handling the case. The complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because a court is dealing with the case.