Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not implemented recommendations that were made at stage two and three of the statutory complaint procedure. The Ombudsman finds fault with how the Council considered the recommendations. We have recommended the Council reconsider its decision and make a financial payment to Miss X.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding concern. He says the Council did not take any action despite knowing his son was present during the assault. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council’s decision.

Summary: Ms X complains about decisions taken by the Council in relation to direct payments for her two disabled children. She is particularly unhappy about a decision by an appeal panel taken in June 2018, which she says upheld a reduction in payments and did not properly consider their family circumstances. The Ombudsman found there was fault in how the Council handled evidence presented for an April 2018 ‘mini panel’ hearing. However, the rest of its panel hearings about Ms X’s case, including her appeal in June 2018, were properly conducted.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services actions in 2018. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council did not consult him when dealing with matters relating to his education and misrepresented his views. He says he was not given an opportunity to provide his views and on the occasions he was, they were ignored. The Ombudsman has discontinued the investigation into this complaint. This is because a tribunal has already considered many of the matters which Mr X has raised in his complaint, which means we cannot consider them. Furthermore, it is unlikely we would be able to reach a finding of fault if we were to investigate the part of the complaint that we can consider.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s refusal to allow his summer born twins to start school at age 5 in Reception year, causing them injustice. The Ombudsman finds fault in the Council’s decision making process. The Ombudsman recommends the Council apologises, makes its decision again in line with the School Admissions Code and Government Guidance and acts to prevent recurrence.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not uphold Miss X’s complaint about how the appeal panel considered the impact of a gang related incident on her daughter. However, there were other faults in the way the panel considered Miss X’s appeal for a school place. This means Miss X cannot be sure the panel considered her appeal properly. The admission authority will offer a fresh appeal for Miss X and remind all clerks of the requirements set out in the Appeals Code for recording decision making and issuing decision letters.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not uphold Miss X’s complaint about the admission authority not providing information about the need to complete a supplementary form. However, there was fault in the way the panel considered Miss X’s appeal for a school place. This means Miss X cannot be sure the panel considered her appeal properly. The admission authority will offer a fresh appeal for Miss X and remind all clerks of the requirements set out in the Appeals Code for recording decision making and issuing decision letters.

Summary: Miss X complains about the way an admissions appeal panel considered her appeal for a secondary school place for her son. The Ombudsman does not find fault with how the admissions appeal panel considered the appeal.

Summary: the Clerk’s failure to make a record of the Panel’s voting at both stages of Mr X’s school admission appeal hearing was fault. But this fault did not cause injustice to Mr X. Other records from the appeal hearing confirm the Panel members had decided to refuse his appeal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a school waiting list and application. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal the Council’s decision not to grant a place for his child at their preferred school. They have not been caused an injustice by the Council temporarily removing D’s name from a school waiting list.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss A’s complaint that the Council was at fault in its involvement with her daughter’s care. This is because the complaint concerns matters which have been decided in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms A’s complaint that the Council has failed to act to safeguard her son. This is because it concerns matters which have been considered in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that the Council has refused to backdate her son’s entitlement for free school transport. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

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

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council handled an urgent child protection matter, particularly the actions of two social workers. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely he could add to the Council’s previous investigation, nor can he achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: Ms C, who was a child in the Council’s care, says the Council is at fault for offering to fund her accommodation at university only if she lives with her former foster family from whom she is estranged. The Council is at fault. It cannot insist Ms C continues to live with the foster family against her will. This is an injustice. The Council has a duty to provide accommodation while she is studying. It should fund alternative accommodation for her.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council carried out a Child and Family Assessment into the wellbeing of her child. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was no fault with how the Council completed its assessment.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s response to child protection concerns about his children. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the Mr X is seeking.

Summary: Miss B complains about the way the Council dealt with the school admissions appeal process her child. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation as Miss B’s child has now been offered a place at the school.

Summary: Ms B complains about how the Council dealt with her complaint under the statutory complaints procedure for children’s services. The Council failed to make appropriate recommendations at stage 2 of the complaint procedure. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused to Ms B.

Summary: Mr B complained about the removal of residential provision at school for his daughter, C, who has special educational needs. We find the Council’s position on this provision is unclear and contradictory. We consider Mr B should include the issue in his upcoming appeal to the Tribunal.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot consider this complaint about the involvement of the Council’s children’s services with the complainant’s family. This is because the actions complained of are in relation to a matter that was considered in court, and is therefore out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a Section 47 assessment carried out by the Council’s social services. This is because we are unlikely to find fault causing significant injustice in the Council’s actions, and we cannot achieve the complainant’s desired outcomes.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council took too long to issue an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her son, Z, and failed to assess his social care needs. She says this caused her family unnecessary stress. The Council assessed Z’s social care needs. But it delayed issuing his EHC Plan and took almost six months to complete a carer’s assessment for Ms X, though this recommended a different assessment, so we cannot yet say if the delay has caused injustice. It is also not yet clear if Z has missed any SEN provision

Summary: Mr B complains at the Council’s decision, upheld on appeal, not to admit his daughter into a preferred secondary school. We do not uphold the complaint, finding no fault in the actions of the Council (acting as the school admission authority) or an independent school admission appeal panel.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the School’s admission appeal panel handled his appeal for a place for his child at the School. The Ombudsman does not find fault with the way the panel reached its decision to refuse the appeal but does find fault with the way the panel explained the decision in its letter to Mr X. The School will ensure Mr X now receives a complete decision letter with an apology.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the decision the Council should care for his children and arrange an adoption. The Court made these orders and we cannot investigate Court orders.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services not disclosing documents to him which he says the Court ordered. The events have been known to Mr X for more than 12 months and there are no compelling reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: After a previous finding by the Ombudsman, Mrs X complains the Council continues to fail to provide her son with a suitable education and the special education needs provision he is entitled to. The Ombudsman found there was fault by the Council when it took too long to carry out a reassessment of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It also failed to put in place suitable alternative provision for his education for five months after his school excluded him. This fault caused a significant injustice to her and her son and the Council has accepted our recommendation it should apologise and pay a financial remedy.

Summary: Mrs C complains about the way the school admissions panel considered her appeal against the decision to refuse a school place for her son. There was fault due to the panel failing to keep an accurate record of the hearing. The School has agreed to arrange for a fresh appeal and for service improvements to be implemented.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the process which led to an Education Health and Care Plan. Mrs X has appealed that Plan to the Tribunal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her child’s exclusion from school in 2012. This is because most of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction with no discretion to investigate. Mrs X’s concerns about the accuracy of information are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mrs J complains about the way the school admissions panel considered her appeal against the decision to refuse a school place for her daughter. There was fault due to the panel failing to keep an accurate record of the hearing. The School has agreed to arrange for a fresh appeal and for service improvements to be implemented.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school for her daughter for 2019. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way that the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) considering the appeal made its decision.

Summary: the Council delayed recognising Ms B’s agreement to care for her granddaughter was not a private arrangement which delayed provision of funding. An apology, agreement to backdate the fostering allowance to 2013, additional payment to Miss B, review of the Council’s policy and training for officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to protect her children from harm when she raised concerns about past abuse. She also complained about the Council’s decision not to investigate its actions. There was no fault in how the Council responded to concerns Mrs X raised. In 2018 it decided not to investigate the complaint having properly considered its circumstances.

Summary: Miss B complains the Council did not properly deal with a s17 child in need assessment. The Council was not at fault in how it carried out the s17 assessment, but it did not deal with Miss B’s complaint through the correct complaints process. Miss B did not suffer any injustice because of this.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about his contact with his children as a Court decided this. We will not investigate his complaint about a contact issue in April 2018 as there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful application and appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council or the appeal panel. Without evidence of fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council left her to deal with a building contractor after 2015, when shoddy works to adapt their home were carried out and that it has since failed to re-assess her daughter, Z, as a child-in-need. She says this has means Z has not been able to use the downstairs shower that was installed. Ms X did not raise with the Council the matter of Z being a possible child-in-need until 2018, so we will not consider matters before then. But the Council failed for six months after we first told it the failed adaptations might mean Z is now a child-in-need to recognise its duty to re-assess her. It will not be possible to know if this delay caused any injustice to Z until it completes the overdue assessment.

Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council handled safeguarding concerns she raised. We find the Council at fault for not communicating the outcome of the referral to her or giving her the opportunity to fully discuss her concerns. The Council has agreed to give her another opportunity to do so now.

Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Mr X’s complaint about the lack of nursery provision for his son Y when he was a looked after child. The Council failed to take action to arrange transport to Y’s existing nursery or to identify an alternative nursery for him to attend. It also did not complete a Personal Education Plan (PEP). As a result, Y lost an opportunity to receive early education, including support with his speech and building relationships with his peers. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to him and to Y, and review its procedures to ensure timescales for PEPs are clear.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained that an investigation into an allegation against them and their standards of care as foster carers was flawed because it was based on incorrect information. The Ombudsman finds that the Council’s decisions were not affected by flaws in the investigation.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly investigate his concerns about his ex-wife and her partner’s behaviour towards his children. The Council correctly carried out child and family assessments and decided to take no further action. The Council has also correctly followed its policy on persistent complaints.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation of this complaint. This is because the issues raised are either late, would be better addressed by a different body, or should be raised as a complaint about a different local authority.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services actions in the 1990s. There are no compelling reasons the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council was at fault in placing his children in care and in refusing to allow him unsupervised contact with him. This is because the complaint is late and concerns matters which were decided in court.

Summary: Mrs B complained about failures by the Council to provide education and special educational provision for her son, C, when they moved into Northamptonshire in May 2018. We find the Council at fault for failing to provide education for C between May and July 2018, for failing to maintain his existing EHCP while it carried out a reassessment, for failing to give reasons for its decisions and for failing to consider the information Mrs B provided as part of the process. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs B £1200 for the educational benefit of C, £1800 towards the costs she incurred and £500 for her time and trouble in pursuing this matter.

Summary: Mrs F complains a school admission appeals panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a place for her son, G. There is evidence of fault and the school has agreed to offer Mrs F a fresh appeal.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the adequacy of an Education Health and Care Plan assessment. Mrs X has appealed the Council’s assessment decision to the Tribunal.

Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to reject her appeal regarding the refusal of a place for her daughter at the secondary school she wanted. But the Ombudsman has no reason to investigate this matter because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr A’s complaint that the Council was at fault in disclosing his personal information. It would be appropriate for Mr A to bring the matter to the attention of the Information Commissioner.

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

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has refused to provide financial support since asking her to care for a child, Y in February 2014. Ms X also complains the Council failed to respond to her complaint within the statutory timescales. The Council’s failure to treat Y as a Looked after Child and provide appropriate support since placing him with Ms X amounts to fault. As does the failure to respond to Ms X’s complaint within the statutory timescales. These faults have caused Ms X an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigation of a complaint about its involvement with the complainant’s family. This is because we are unlikely to find fault with the councils handling of the complaint, and could not add anything to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

Summary: the Council cannot explain why Mrs M’s daughter, G, was eligible for a Blue Badge in the past but her recent application to renew her Badge was unsuccessful. The Council invited G to an assessment but then made a decision without seeing her. These faults call the Council’s decision into question. The Council has agreed to consider a fresh application.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council’s children services team should not have refused to investigate his complaint. We cannot investigate the complaint Mr X would like the Council to reply to, which means we cannot also investigate the way the Council replied to that complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about advice its children services team gave his children’s mother. We cannot achieve the outcome he seeks of more contact with his children.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the school transport arrangements made by the Council are not suitable as the journey to and from school is in excess of 75 minutes each way. The Council is at fault as it did not adequately investigate her complaints that her daughter’s school bus journey is in excess of 75 minutes each way. The Council has agreed to remedy Mrs X’s injustice by making an apology to her and by monitoring her daughter’s bus journey for a period of month and take appropriate action to reconsider the transport arrangements if the journey is in excess of 75 minutes.

Summary: I do not uphold Mrs M’s complaint that the Council’s failure to name a school in her daughter, G’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan meant she missed out on the support she needed for over a year.

Summary: there is no fault in the involvement of the LADO following an allegation Mr T acted in a way which put children at risk of harm.

Summary: Miss K complains the Council failed to offer her son, L, free transport to the school he attended. There is no evidence of Council fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision for the complainant’s son and other children at the same school. This is because complaints relating to the management of schools, and the Council’s actions in response to such complaints, are out of his jurisdiction.

Summary: There was no fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr and Mrs B’s concerns about their grandson’s welfare.

Summary: Mr B complains about the way the Council has treated him and his granddaughter, Miss C, when looking at concerns following an injury to his great granddaughter, Miss C’s daughter. The Council has already remedied the fault in saying Mr B had a criminal record and dealt with Mr B’s complaints about this in a thorough and sensitive way.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge to the complainant’s child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his family. This is because his complaint is late and there is not enough evidence the alleged fault has caused Mr X a significant personal injustice. Also, it is unlikely an investigation by the Ombudsman could add anything to the Council’s response.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Special Educational Needs provision for her son. This is because much of the complaint is late and we have no powers to consider what happens in schools.

Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council’s admissions appeal panel failed to properly consider her child’s appeal for a place at a local grammar school. The Ombudsman has stopped this investigation, as the Council has now offered a place to Mrs Y’s child and no further action by the Ombudsman is needed.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s interventions in respect of the complainants’ children. This is because there is no worthwhile outcome that we can achieve through further investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the ending of the Council’s support for the complainant’s family in 2015. This is because the complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council delayed progressing a transfer review process for Ms F’s son, failed to make suitable education provision for him for a period of two months and failed to deal properly with a complaint about this. The Council will take action to recognise the injustice these faults have caused including apologising to Ms F and making a payment to her of £1200.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint from a parent about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down his appeal for a school place for his son. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal.