Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has placed her & her son who we shall call Y in inappropriate accommodation for the past five years and has failed to provide her with proper support. Mrs X says the Council has refused to allow her representative to attend meetings and will not allow her to stay away from the accommodation.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed in putting in place the therapies in her son’s Education Health and Care Plan and failed to make up for the missing sessions. The Council was at fault in delaying arranging the therapies and the catch-up provision. The Council has now arranged the therapies and agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment for her time and trouble.

Summary: Mr F complains a school admission appeals panel failed to properly consider his appeal for a place for his son, G. There is no evidence of fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about penalty charge notices for his children’s non-attendance at school. This is because if Mr X wanted to challenge the fines he could have done so in court. An investigation into the Council’s handling of his complaint is not warranted. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault causing injustice, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that the Council failed to safeguard her son. The complaint is late and there are no grounds to use the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate it because it concerns matters which have been considered in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about children services involvement in her family. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council removed her child from her care without any evidence and has failed to provide details of the allegations made against her. She also complains it has not considered evidence which is relevant to her case and that it won’t let her have unsupervised contact with her child, despite this evidence saying she does not pose a risk to others. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because the matters she complains about have already been considered in court, which means they are out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs A’s complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing her application and appeal for free school transport 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 A’s complaint that the Council failed to act on his concerns about his daughter’s welfare. This is because the complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds for us to consider it now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A’s complaint that the Council has been at fault in its involvement with the care of her children. This is because it concerns matters which have been considered in court, and investigation would not achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Mr X’s complaint about the changes the Council made to his daughter’s transport to school. The Council did not properly assess the suitability of the vehicle. It also failed to respond to Mr X’s concerns about the passenger assistant. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council will carry out a thorough risk assessment and make a payment to Mr X and his daughter. It will also train its staff on the use of wheelchair restraint systems and carry out risk assessments for other children who travel to and from school in their wheelchair.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to secure provision ordered by Tribunal in an EHC Plan. This has caused Y to miss out on education and fall a further year behind his peers. Recommendations for an apology, financial remedy and service improvements are made.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the financial support provided by the Council to help her to care for her three grandchildren. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council managed her allowances. To remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman recommended the Council should apologise, write off the overpayment made to Mrs X and carry out a new assessment. The Council has agreed with this recommendation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council did not properly consider their safeguarding concerns about Mr X’s child, who lives with their mother. We propose not to investigate this complaint. We cannot achieve the outcome Mr and Mrs X want, which is to have more contact with the child. This is an issue for the courts.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the content of a Section 7 report and the conduct of the social worker who produced it. This is because concerns about the report could have been raised in court, and we have no powers to consider what happened during legal proceedings.

Summary: Miss X complains about the actions undertaken by the Council before and after her daughter was removed from her care. She says the social workers involved in the case have lied in court and presented reports to it which are not based on reliable evidence. Similarly, she states they have not considered all the information relevant to the case, nor are they following the court order that was issued. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because the matters she complains about have already been considered in court or are in the process of being reconsidered, which means they are out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the actions undertaken by the Council which led to her son being taken into foster care. She says the information it provided to the court about her case was inaccurate and its actions have had a significant impact on her and her family. She wants the Council to return to court so the case can be reheard and her son returned to her care. She also wants an investigation into what went wrong and compensation for the injustice she and her family have suffered. The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because the matters she complains about have already been considered in court, which means they are out of our jurisdiction.

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

Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal regarding a place for her son at her preferred primary school. But the Ombudsman does not have reason to investigate the complaint because there is no sign of fault by the panel in the way it made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s influence over his girlfriend. The alleged fault has not directly caused the claimed injustice.

Summary: The Council delayed issuing a final education, health and care plan, delayed making the amendments requested by tribunal, failed to meet with Mrs B to discuss her concerns about the plan, failed to involve Mrs B and her son when setting the outcomes in the plan and delayed consulting schools to arrange full-time education. That led to Mrs B going to time and trouble to pursue her complaint, delayed her appeal and left her uncertain about whether her son could have received full time education earlier. An apology, payment to Mrs B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a special educational needs assessment. We cannot investigate assessments carried out on behalf of a school.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss A’s complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing her application for free school transport for her daughter. This is because it would be reasonable for Miss A to use her right to appeal.

Summary: Ms B complains about the actions of the Council following referral alleging emotional abuse of her daughter, D, by D’s father. She also complains about how the Council dealt with her complaint about the matter. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council in how it dealt with the concerns of abuse Ms B raised with it, and any faults in the statutory complaint investigation were not so significant as to warrant re-investigation of the complaint by the Ombudsman. There was however delay by the Council in completing its consideration of her complaint. As a result, Ms B was put to some time and trouble pursuing the matter, for which the Council has agreed appropriate remedy.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of a referral from the school about his son’s behaviour. There is no fault in the Council’s handling of the referral or the way in which it considered the evidence it obtained about Mr B and his son.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the actions of the Council after her teenage son left home and stayed at addresses she did not consider safe or appropriate. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council in respect of the matters complained of.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about who should care for his child. The Court decided this. We should not investigate the Council’s response to an injury to the child. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to complain to the Council once a Police investigation is completed.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the way in which the Council shared information that it said the complainant had disclosed, to her daughter. This is because we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome through further investigation.

Summary: Miss B complains about the Council’s handling of her request for an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son. We find the Council took too long to issue the final Plan. This meant Miss B’s son did not receive special educational provision he should have received. The Council has agreed to make payments to Miss B and her son to put right the injustice they suffered. We have completed our investigation.

Summary: Ms B complains that the Council was wrong to refuse post-19 transport for the 2018/19 academic year for her adult daughter C, who has a disability and complex needs. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendation that it pay Ms B £3,000 towards her transport costs for the 2018/19 academic year and to pay Ms B and C a total of £900 to reflect the injustice caused to them over the course of the last year.

Summary: Ms C says the Council should pay for her granddaughter’s school transport. She attends a faith school but is not a member of that faith. They qualify for ‘extended rights’ to school transport. Ms C says she suffered injustice because she was discriminated against. The Council was not at fault for the way it dealt with Ms C’s application. It agreed Ms C had extended rights but found she did not meet the extended rights criteria. The Council was at fault for having an inadequate appeals procedure which fettered its discretion to make allowance for exceptional circumstances but this caused Ms C no injustice.

Summary: Mr and Mrs C complained that the Council failed to provide support for a child who was in their care. The Ombudsman finds fault by the Council, causing injustice to Mr and Mrs C. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment to Mr and Mrs C and review its practices.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has failed to fully implement the recommendations made by the stage three review panel. The Council’s failure to review and amend its Adoption Support Policy in line with the review panel’s recommendations and the Council’s own assurances amounts to fault.

Summary: Ms X and Ms Y are special guardians for a child under their care. They complain that a Section 7 report which the Council prepared for a Child Arrangement Order court hearing about him contains contradictions, inconsistencies and inaccuracies. They say it portrays them in a very negative manner and is derogatory in nature. The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint. This is because the matters which Ms X and Ms Y complain about have already been considered in court and therefore are out of our jurisdiction.