Summary: The Council failed to comply with an Ombudsman recommendation to carry out a new assessment of eligibility in three complaints about home to school transport for children with special educational needs (SEN) and mobility difficulties. We are issuing this report because the Council did not comply with our recommendations. We are concerned that, despite the service improvements the  Council says it has made, it repeated the same fault.

Summary: The Council failed to comply with an Ombudsman recommendation to carry out a new assessment of eligibility in three complaints about home to school transport for children with special educational needs (SEN) and mobility difficulties. We are issuing this report because the Council did not comply with our recommendations. We are concerned that, despite the service improvements the  Council says it has made, it repeated the same fault.

Summary: The Council failed to comply with an Ombudsman recommendation to carry out a new assessment of eligibility in three complaints about home to school transport for children with special educational needs (SEN) and mobility difficulties. We are issuing this report because the Council did not comply with our recommendations. We are concerned that, despite the service improvements the  Council says it has made, it repeated the same fault.

Summary: The Ombudsmen find a Council and CCG failed to work together properly to agree a young person’s Education Health and Care Plan. The young person missed out on support for an assessed health need over a prolonged period. Their parents were able to fund some private support, for which they have been partly reimbursed by the Council. The CCG has agreed to reimburse the outstanding amount. Further, the CCG has agreed to provide a financial remedy to acknowledge the uncertainty about the impact on the young person’s health.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A’s complaint that the Council’s school admission appeal panel failed to properly consider her 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 will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide his child with a place at this school. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused him to lose out on a school place.

Summary: there is fault by the Council in relation to the delay in responding to Mr F’s complaint between July and October 2018 and the Council should apologise to Mr F for this. I do not consider there is fault in relation to Mr F’s complaint that the Council discriminated against him on the grounds of his mental ill health.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a delay in closing a foster care placement. There is no significant injustice caused to Mrs X requiring a remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council considered her application and appeal for her disabled son to receive home to school transport. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault because it did not follow the statutory guidance. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise, reconsider the application and review its policy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council’s school admission appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her child. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council in its handling of the appeal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms A’s complaint about the actions of the Council between 2016 and 2018 when it received allegations about her husband. This is because he could not say there is any fault with the actions taken by the Council or add to the Council’s responses or make a finding of the kind Ms A wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint about support provided by the Council to Mr J’s family. Support is now being provided by a different service provider and it is unlikely investigation by us would achieve more than this.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral. It is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr Y complains about the Council’s decision to withdraw an offer of free home to school transport for his daughter, X. He says the Council’s approach is unfair and inconsistent. Mr Y also complains about the conduct of the subsequent appeal hearing against the Council’s decision. The Ombudsman does not uphold the complaint because there is no evidence of procedural fault and so we cannot question the merits of the Council’s decision.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Mrs Q has appealed to a Tribunal.

Summary: The Council was at fault for a seven-month delay in arranging a meeting between Mr and Mrs B and their daughter’s independent reviewing officer, and in providing them with photographs of their daughter from before it placed her for adoption. The Council has agreed to arrange the meeting, provide the photographs and apologise to Mr and Mrs B for the delay.

Summary: The Council is currently dealing with Ms X’s complaint at stage 2 of the statutory children’s complaints process. Therefore I have discontinued my investigation into this complaint.

Summary: Mr W complained the Council failed to accept an agreement to support him through three years of undergraduate study. The Council was not at fault for saying the agreement it had with Mr W was for him to study a Higher National Diploma rather than a Batchelor of Science degree. But there was no evidence it considered whether supporting Mr W for the final year of study was in Mr W’s best interests. It is asked to do that now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the school admission panel was at fault in refusing his appeal for a school place for his child. It is unlikely we would find fault by the appeal panel acting on the Council’s behalf.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council on the School’s behalf refused to give her its admissions appeal panel hearing notes. It is reasonable to expect her to make a data protection act request. And complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office if the school fails to comply.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services involvement with her children moving to another part of the country. This happened in November 2017 and there are no compelling reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: The complainant alleges that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational provision for her daughter who has special educational needs. The Ombudsman considers that most of the complaint is outside his jurisdiction to investigate because the complainant had, and used, her appeal rights to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council issued him with a penalty charge notice for his child’s non-attendance at school. This is because Mr X’s wife has paid the fine and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants. Also, if Mr X wanted to challenge the Council’s decision, the court was in the best position to consider his defence.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr 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, and so we cannot question its merits.

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, and so we cannot question its merits.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful application and appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council’s school admission appeal panel 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 Council’s part.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about administrative errors in his school admissions application process. The School has now offered a place and it is unlikely our investigation could achieve more.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to take any action after a social worker held her wrists. She said the case records do not reflect what happened and the Council’s complaint process failed to consider her views. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms A’s complaint about her child being adopted against her wishes because it lies outside his jurisdiction. The Ombudsman cannot investigate matters that have been considered and decided in court proceedings. The Ombudsman cannot investigate allegations of criminal activity which Ms A raises as this is a matter for the police.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the court’s decision to remove her grandchildren from her daughter’s care because it lies outside his jurisdiction. The Ombudsman cannot consider matters that have, or could have, been considered in court proceedings. The law prevents us from doing so.