Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to ensure a child received suitable full-time education when she was medically unfit to attend school. Recommendations for an apology, financial payment and service improvements are made.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to transport her son, Y, to school safely, delayed Y’s assessment, which was flawed, and failed to repay her costs. The Ombudsman found fault causing injustice when the Council delayed carrying out an assessment and allowed unsuitable transport to continue, putting Y's safety at risk.

Summary: The Ombudsman finds no evidence of fault with the Council’s decision to refuse Mrs C’s son free school transport.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council raised its concerns over the education he provides for his children. This is because the injustice claimed is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about how the Council decided to take her children into care. This is because the Ombudsman cannot investigate a complaint about something that has been to court.

Summary: The school and appeal panel are at fault as they did not consider if the fair access protocol should have been applied to Ms X’s daughter Y when she appealed for a place at the school. As a result, Y was wrongly denied a place at the school. The school will remedy this injustice by offering a place to Y.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council had failed to treat her correctly by attending a meeting at the school about her son, D, without her knowledge, and then not providing her with minutes and also failing to commit to a mediation process, which may have avoided her going to tribunal. She said this fault had caused her injustice. These matters are either outside of our jurisdiction or there is another agency better placed to consider them so the investigation into this complaint has been discontinued.

Summary: Mrs B complains about a meeting that took place at her daughter’s nursery where appropriate members of staff were not present and a Council officer was rude and suggested the school should not provide services that were not specified in her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. She felt she was caused injustice by the officer’s lack of understanding of her daughter’s needs. The investigation found no evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr B complained about how the Council dealt with his education, health and care plan, college placement, social care budget and complaint. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about the college statement named on Mr B’s plan and the Council was not at fault for failing to put in place a plan to enable him to attend the college named on his statement. The Council delayed reviewing the education, health and care plan, delayed putting in place a social care budget, wrongly sought a financial contribution from Mr B and failed to deal with the complaint properly. That caused Mr B’s parents to have to go to time and trouble to pursue their complaint and caused them distress. An apology, payment to Mr B’s parents, setting up a process to ensure the social care budget is paid promptly and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the appeal panel and so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman has decided not to investigate Mrs J’s complaint about the transport appeal for her son, S, who has SEN, because the Council has agreed to arrange a new appeal.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Ms J’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with her family. We have already considered and decided the main issues raised, and it is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council has dealt with her contact expenses.

Summary: Mr B complained that the Council, in dealing with allegations made against him by children he was fostering, failed to inform him of the allegations or allow him to respond to them. We find the Council failed to ensure Mr B was informed of all the allegations in a clear and timely manner and failed to allow his voice to be heard as part of the LADO process. The Council has agreed to pay Mr B £150, allow him to submit his response to the allegations to be kept on record and review the forms it uses for the future.

Summary: There was fault in the Council’s decision to change the pick-up point for Miss B’s son’s school transport. There was also fault in how the Council considered her requests for reconsideration and her complaints. The changed arrangements meant she had to make alternative arrangements to get her son and other child to school. This was time-consuming and expensive. The Council will apologise to Miss B and make a payment to her.

Summary: Ms B complains about how a school admission appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a secondary school place for her child. The Ombudsman finds there was no fault in the appeal hearing to call into question the decision on Ms B’s appeal. There was however a delay in notifying Ms B of the panel’s decision reasons, and that was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise for this.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly upheld a school admissions appeal for a child, Y, meaning Mrs X’s own child was disadvantaged. The Council is at fault and caused injustice to Mrs X’s child. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X, pay her £150 for her time and trouble and provide training to members of the appeal panel.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s telephone call to Mrs X which upset her and its complaint response. The Council has resolved the complaint by its written apology and confirmation that Mrs X did not do anything wrong in taking her grandchild away for a weekend.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has used a false allegation against him to prevent him having access to his children. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome Mr B is seeking.

Summary: Ms B complained the Council took too long to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan for her son, C. It also failed to consult with her through the process of developing this and then failed to properly answer the complaints she made, which caused distress and time and trouble. There is evidence of fault and the Council has agreed to apologise, make payments and check its procedures.

Summary: Miss B complains about the Council’s handling of her request for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan for her Son. She also complains he should not have been placed on a Child Protection Plan. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for a delay issuing the EHC plan and its handling of Miss B’s complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide school transport for her son. The Council offered to pay Mrs X £500 to cover the costs of school transport which has resolved the outstanding issue and no further action by the Ombudsman is needed.

Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to refuse her appeal concerning a school place for her daughter. But the Ombudsman has no reason to investigate the complaint because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel made its decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about an incident relating to his son’s home to school transport. This is because the injustice arising from the incident complained of was not significant, and it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide his child with a place at their preferred school. It is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault which caused them to lose out on a school place.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the Council’s decision to remove a foster child from their care and to stop payment of a fostering allowance. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council reached its decisions.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the Council’s decision to close a child in need plan for their grandchildren when the grandchildren’s risk of harm was increasing. Despite finding in Mr and Mrs X’s favour, the Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for the time taken in implementing the recommendations and for not adequately recognising the impact on Mr and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to implement the recommendations from the statutory complaints process and pay Mr and Mrs X £500 for the distress caused.

Summary: Mrs F complains about the Council’s actions in relation to her application for special guardianship. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council which caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs F and properly consider her requests for financial support.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about support the Council provided through children’s services. The complaint lies outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because it is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it now.