Summary: Mrs B complained about how the Council handled child protection issues relating to her daughter. The Council did not invite Mrs B to a child in need meeting and did not provide her with the minutes of that meeting. The Council’s apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: The Council failed to provide Miss X’s son with appropriate levels of care and support whilst he was in the Council’s care. The Council identified this during its investigation of Miss X’s complaint but failed to provide a remedy for the injustice this caused. The Council should pay Miss X £1500 to recognise the distress caused and her time and trouble pursuing this complaint. The Council should also pay Miss X’s son £1000 to recognise the uncertainty he has been caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the loss of some of the complainant’s belongings. This is because the complaint is made late, and there are no good reasons to consider it now. Additionally a complaint about a Subject Access Request (SAR) is better considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint the Council lied in court reports to place her child into care. This is because the complaint concerns a decision made by the court.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her family. This is because we cannot investigate matters which have been considered or decided in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council in relation to the application by the complainant’s ex-partner to change their child’s school. This is because the matter was considered by a court and is out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse home to school transport. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to appeal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Council consultation on school reorganisation. The final decision has not been made, it is reasonable to expect Mr X to comment during the next stage of the process and he has not suffered any significant injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s court report and the actions of its social worker. It is outside jurisdiction due to court proceedings. The Council has agreed to deal further with the second complaint about how an incident at a school, involving Mr X’s son, was investigated.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s involvement with his family and the actions of a social worker linked to a Special Guardianship Order. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to raise his concerns in court, and we cannot consider complaints about ongoing court action.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her daughter’s allegations against a family member. We should not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or recommend a further remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide suitable education to her son and delayed issuing a final Education Health and Care Plan, resulting in missed education and stress to Y and his family. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. He recommends the Council provides an apology, pays £3200 in total for missed education, distress and uncertainty, time and trouble. And, takes action to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to award transport assistance to his over 16-year old son, Y. He said having to take Y to school because of this decision caused him and his wife serious difficulties. There is no fault in how the Council made its decision. It considered its policy and evidence provided by Mr X about the specific circumstances of the situation and explained its decision to them.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council did not provide appropriate support when two children were placed with them on an adoption placement. They said the lack of support led to the failure of the placement. They also said the Council’s complaint investigation was flawed. There was no fault in how the Council considered their complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. As it appropriately considered the complaint, the Ombudsman will not re-investigate.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council holds inaccurate information about him which resulted in the Council holding a Child Protection Conference. The Ombudsman will not investigate because Mr X complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office and it is unlikely that we would achieve a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms B’s complaint about the Council’s response to safeguarding concerns about two children. This is because the complaint is made on behalf of a public body.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council failed to involve him in decisions about his son’s education. The complaint is late and there are insufficient grounds for the Ombudsman to investigate it now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the decision to refuse 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 to refuse home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision which caused him to lose out on transport.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s 11+ test review process. This is because the complainant has a right of appeal to an Independent Appeal Panel if his daughter is refused a place at the grammar school that he wants her to attend, and it is reasonable to expect him to use it.

Summary: Ms B and Mr C complaint about the way the Council handled a safeguarding referral about Ms D’s (Ms B’s daughter) children. The Ombudsman has found no evidence of fault.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to investigate her safeguarding concerns about a foster carer who cared for two of her children between July 2016 and March 2017. The Council was at fault. It failed to adequately investigate Miss X’s concerns and to properly refer some of the matters to the Local Authority Designated Officer in another council area, in line with relevant guidance and policy. The Council also took two years to complete the statutory children’s complaints process. The Council agreed to apologise and pay Miss X a total of £550 to recognise the injustice caused to her. It also agreed to review some of its internal processes.

Summary: Mr B says the Council wrongly placed his son on a child protection plan when it accepts it failed to follow the right process and completed a flawed single assessment. There were some errors in the single assessment which did not affect the overall outcome. The Council failed to consider sharing a redacted version of the single assessment with Mr B before the initial child protection conference. Those errors have undermined Mr B’s confidence in the process. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services actions in 2013 and 2014. Miss X has known about the complaint for more than 12 months and there are no good reasons why Miss X did not complain to the Ombudsman sooner.

Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s original decision not to provide transport for Ms M’s son, B, to college. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault. However, it appears Ms M’s circumstances have changed since her original application, so she could consider making a fresh application.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide his son with free transport to college. The Council has allowed parents of non-eligible post 16 special educational needs students to purchase empty seats available on existing transport. Mr X has purchased a seat on a vehicle and is satisfied with this.

Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the way the Council conducted a Position of Trust meeting and Initial Child Protection Case Conference in respect of concerns about Mr B. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused to Mr B.

Summary: Mr L complained the Council defamed his character when it raised concerns about his safety around children and asked him to attend a course for perpetrators. The Ombudsman cannot consider this complaint as it was considered in court.