Summary: The Ombudsman did not find fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged the Council did not make reasonable adjustments to account for the complainant’s disabilities in its dealings with her over the school needs of her child.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about which school her child attends. It is subject to an appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal. The Ombudsman should not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has followed a Tribunal order. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council holds false information about her. The complaint is better suited to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Ms X complained about how the Council handled the cases of her two children who are subject to care orders. The Council was at fault as it took too long to respond to Ms X’s complaint, for which it has already apologised. It delayed taking substantive action when the court ordered it to arrange contact between Ms X and one of her children, causing Ms X stress and frustration. The Council was also at fault as it delayed considering Ms X’s request for family therapy and then did not clearly communicate its decision not to arrange this. This caused confusion for Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £150.

Summary: Ms X complains of fault in the way the Council dealt with her when assessing her sons’ needs. The Council has been at fault in the way it has communicated with her and this has caused Ms X avoidable anxiety. The Council has already apologised for its communication failures, and it will also pay Ms X £750 and remind staff that parental consent is required for assessments of children unless there is a good reason not to seek consent.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services actions. There are no compelling reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: Miss X complained that she was provided with information about another person as part of a court case. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about court proceedings. Complaints about data protection are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council was at fault in its actions concerning the care of his sister’s children. Part of his complaint is late, and the substantive matters have been considered in court, or could have been challenged in in court.

Summary: Mr B complains about the appeal panel’s decision not to admit his children to his preferred schools. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault in that the panel was not given the opportunity to decide whether late information submitted by Mr B should be considered at the hearing. The Council was also at fault in that its decision letter in respect of one of the appeals did not properly explain the reasons for the panel’s decision. The Council has agreed to remedy the caused to Mr B by offering him a fresh appeal and reviewing the training needs of its clerks and panel members.

Summary: Ms X complains that the independent appeal panel failed to consider her individual circumstances when it considered her appeal for a School place for her son. She also said the panel failed to follow the correct process. The Ombudsman has found no fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the decision to refuse her appeal for a school place. The school has offered her daughter a place.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s production of an Education Health and Care Plan. It is not possible to assess the personal injustice caused to Mrs X until a Tribunal result is known.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s role in the investigation of an incident at school where his son was placed in a room behind a locked door. There was fault in the Council’s role in the oversight of the investigation and in its handling of Mr X’s complaint. The Council will apologise.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her family and the accuracy of a report. This is because an investigation is unlikely to achieve a significantly different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions following his daughter’s disclosures of abuse. The matter was subject to court proceedings which concluded just days ago. The Council now needs the opportunity to consider the complaint before the Ombudsman can. However, the Ombudsman cannot investigate matters that have been considered in court.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council has failed to take action to safeguard his children. This is because the matters about which he complains have been, or can be, raised in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr A’s complaint that the social worker commissioned to produce a Section 7 report is not independent of the Council. Complaints relating to such reports fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Council failed to allocate a school place to a child when his mother said she wanted to stop home educating. It also failed to update the child’s education, health and care plan. This caused unnecessary time and trouble to the child’s mother, but, as the parent and council disagree about the type of school the child should attend, and the parent wanted to defer school for a year, it is likely the parent would have continued to educate the child at home in any event.

Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse travel assistance for her son. The Ombudsman finds there was some fault in the way the Council considered her appeal. This caused Miss X uncertainty as to what the outcome may have been. I have recommended that the Council apologises to Miss X and reconsiders her appeal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about an unsuccessful 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 A’s complaint that the school admission appeal panel was at fault in refusing 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 the Council’s decision not to provide his daughter with free or assisted 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 admission authority’s written statement for the admission appeal did not include relevant information about the home to school distance of children who were offered places. However, this fault did not cause injustice to Miss X because it would not have changed the Independent Appeal Panel’s decision to refuse her appeal.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the way the Council managed the process which considered her daughter’s school admissions appeal. She says the panel which heard the appeal did not properly consider the information she submitted in support of it, despite there being evidence the admissions criteria had not been applied correctly. The Ombudsman has found the Council was at fault because the panel decided Mrs X’s appeal without having all the information it needed to do so. Her daughter may have been offered a place at her preferred school if the distances and routes used to determine the initial application had been calculated incorrectly. Therefore, we recommend the Council arranges a new hearing so the appeal can be reheard and the panel can consider whether the initial calculations were wrong. We have also made a service improvement recommendation to prevent the fault we have identified from reoccurring. The Council has agreed to carry out these recommendations.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed paying a financial remedy recommended by the Ombudsman in 2016. There is no fault in the actions of the Council as it did not receive Ms X’s bank account details until 2019.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal to pay her and her husband, Mr X, as kinship carers for Mr X’s grandchildren. The Council was at fault as it did not recognise them as kinship carers, causing them a financial detriment. The Council acknowledged this through its complaints procedures, however it wrongly decided Mr and Mrs X were not entitled to payment for part of the period. The Council has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs X for the whole period it placed their grandchildren in their care. It has agreed to apologise and pay them £500 to recognise the time and trouble they have gone to and the frustration its faults have caused them.

Summary: Mr X complains about two section 17 family assessments. He says the report aren’t accurate and are misleading. Mr X made a complaint to the Council. The Council refused to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the statutory children’s complaint procedure. We find fault with the Council for failing to follow the statutory children’s complaint procedure properly. The Council has agreed to escalate Mr X’s complaint to stage 2 of the procedure.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to share information about his child or involve him in a school application. It is unlikely we would find any fault which requires a remedy and the Information Commissioner is better placed.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services actions in 2016 and 2017. There are no compelling reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide education to her son Y over two months and failed to update his Education and Health Care Plan, causing loss of education, stress and financial loss. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. We recommend the Council provides an apology, makes a payment and provides guidance to staff to ensure they follow statutory guidance in future.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to provide education to his son, Mr C, and failed to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan for him. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to make a payment and change its procedures. It has also agreed to provide additional education to Mr C in order to put him back in the position he would have been but for the fault.

Summary: Ms B complains about the actions of a bus driver who provides home to school transport for her disabled son. The Ombudsman discontinued his investigation as no worthwhile outcome could be achieved.

Summary: The Council was at fault because an independent admission appeals panel relied on inaccurate information about the home to school distance Mr X ‘s son would have to travel if he attended his allocated school, instead of Mr X ‘s first preference. Mr X and his son suffered the injustice of not knowing what the outcome of the appeal would have been, if the panel had based its decision on correct information. Accordingly, I have asked the Council to arrange a fresh appeal hearing.

Summary: Mrs F complains the Council failed to offer free home to school transport for her son, G, who was attending the school named on his Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council accepted fault and will reimburse Mrs F for the travel she has already paid for and put free travel in place for the future.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions after it took her children into care. There was no fault in how the Council dealt with Ms X’s complaints. I will not investigate Ms X’s other complaints because they are about issues which are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr and Mrs W complained the Council failed to treat them appropriately as specialist carers rather than as foster carers. They said the Council failed to address their concerns. The contract they signed with the Council allowed flexibility of interpretation and the investigation has found no evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s failure to recognise him and his partner as foster carers when a young person, C, stayed with them on a long-term basis. We find fault with the Council’s decision-making process: it decided C lived with them as a private family arrangement, without any substantiating evidence of this agreement. It also delayed in formally considering the legal status of the arrangement. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £750.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to investigate concerns her husband raised about his ex-partner’s care of their son, Z and then stopped providing Z with support in 2014. Mrs X also complained the Council refused to exercise its discretion and consider her complaint because it was late. There was no fault in the way the Council considered Mr X’s concerns or ceased its involvement with Z in 2014. However, the Council acted with fault in the way it decided not to accept Mrs X’s complaint in 2018. But this did not cause Mrs X a significant injustice because the Ombudsman has now considered her complaints.

Summary: The Council failed to follow statutory safeguarding procedures in a case of alleged Fabricated and Induced Illness. The Trust failed to ensure it completed a review of health records in a timely way and did not provide adequate resources for that process. Both the Council and the Trust failed to ensure co-operative working and robust processes to ensure delays were kept to a minimum. These faults and delays caused the complainant distress, for which we have recommended a limited financial remedy of £500, payable by the Council as lead safeguarding organisation. We have also made recommendations for the Council and Trust to improve their practice. The Trust and Council have accepted these findings and recommendations.

Summary: The Council failed to follow statutory safeguarding procedures in a case of alleged Fabricated and Induced Illness. The Trust failed to ensure it completed a review of health records in a timely way and did not provide adequate resources for that process. Both the Council and the Trust failed to ensure co-operative working and robust processes to ensure delays were kept to a minimum. These faults and delays caused the complainant distress, for which we have recommended a limited financial remedy of £500, payable by the Council as lead safeguarding organisation. We have also made recommendations for the Council and Trust to improve their practice. The Trust and Council have accepted these findings and recommendations.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain the Council is at fault for failing to increase the Special Guardianship Allowance they receive for their granddaughter from the rate set in a support plan agreed with the Council when the Special Guardianship Order was made in 2011. This fault has meant they have received less financial support than they would otherwise have received.