Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to recognise her and her partner as family and friends carers when a private fostering arrangement for Child C ended.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to refuse her application for home to school transport for her disabled son. The Ombudsman has found the Council to be at fault because it did not properly consider his disability and applied the wrong legal test. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to reconsider the application, apologise to Mrs X and review its policy to ensure compliance with the statutory guidance.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not consider Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Council’s complaint process at this stage. It is reasonable to expect the Council to complete the complaints process.

Summary: Ms Y complains about the approach taken by the Council when making enquiries about the elective home education which she provides to her two daughters. The Ombudsman finds no evidence of procedural fault. The Council was entitled to make enquiries of Ms Y following a referral it received about the suitability of the education. The Council therefore had a duty in law to establish whether the education Ms Y provides is suitable.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman does not have grounds to investigate this complaint from a parent about the school admission appeal panel’s decision in her daughter’s case. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with the appeal.

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

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school for her son. This is because he now has a place at the school so an investigation would not achieve anything further as an outcome.

Summary: Ms X complains about social workers’ handling of a child protection matter involving her son. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Ms X. The Council agreed to make a formal apology to Ms X.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complain about the way the Council dealt with a child protection investigation involving Ms Y’s daughter. The Ombudsman does not find the Council at fault in deciding to carry out a child protection investigation. But there were some faults in the way it handled the matter and in dealing with the complaint. The Council has agreed a suitable a remedy, including an apology and a reminder to staff about the correct procedures.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council unfairly restricted her access to her grandchildren. She also complained the Council shared sensitive information with her grandchildren’s paternal grandparents without her permission and despite telling her it would not do so. She said this caused her distress and upset. There was no fault in the Council’s actions regarding contact arrangements. There was fault in the Council’s actions when it shared sensitive information disclosed by Ms X with the paternal grandparents. The Council has agreed to pay Ms X £100 to recognise the distress she experienced.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council wrongly took child protection action in respect of her children A and B, causing her stress and difficulties in her professional life. There were some more minor faults in the Council’s actions, but these did not cause significant injustice. The Council’s decision that both children needed Child Protection Plans was one it was entitled to take.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not and cannot investigate X’s complaint about events surrounding children X fostered. The Court made the crucial decisions, the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider data inaccuracy complaints and the remaining injustice from an allegation of poor communication is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the complainant’s child being placed in the care of the father and a complaint that the Council has ignored reports that the child is at risk. This is because the matters are subject to legal proceedings and because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the removal of the complainant’s son from a school roll. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide adequate help when her children were on a child protection plan and did not deal with her complaints correctly. I have discontinued my investigation on the basis that X’s complaints are premature as they are still being investigated by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council appointed a Council officer to work with him and his family who was biased against him and caused him to lose access to his child for several months. He says this caused him emotional distress. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot and should not investigate Mr J’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his family. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation, and many of the matters about which he complains lie outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a data breach by a Council officer. This is because complaints about data issues are best considered by the Information Commissioner.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about a request for information because there is another body better placed to consider it. Complaints about data matters are best considered by the Information Commissioner.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his stepdaughter. The courts are considering the care arrangements. It is reasonable for Mr X to raise his concerns with the court.

Summary: Ms C says the Council failed to deal with her request to find alternative education for her daughter promptly. She says X missed out on education as a result. The Council was at fault. It has agreed to pay X £1,900 in recognition of her missed education and pay Mrs C £300 for the trouble she was caused.

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 and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Summary: Mr X complains of several failings by the Council in making SEN provision for his son, Z, causing loss of education and stress for the family. Some of the matters complained of are outside our jurisdiction, and the Council was not at fault in others, but it took too long to issue an Education Health and Care Plan for Z, and failed to consider Mr X’s complaint under the correct statutory procedure, despite two elements of the complaint being social care matters. However, these faults did not cause the injustice the family suffered.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to return her stepdaughter, Y back into her care after it completed child protection enquiries. The Ombudsman finds the Council was not at fault.

Summary: When the Council considers allegations against people who work with children, it applies a higher ‘harm’ threshold than is set out in its online procedure. It is for the Council to decide which threshold to apply, and it has decided that it is the procedure, rather than its approach, which needs changing. It has agreed to take steps to address this. Although the threshold application did not cause Mrs B an injustice, the Council delayed telling her about its refusal to investigate her allegations. It has agreed to make a payment of £150 to recognise this.

Summary: Mrs X complained on behalf of a looked after child, F. Mrs X complained the Council failed to consider F’s wishes and best interest when it removed them from a foster placement and placed them with new foster parents. Mrs X said the Council refused to accept her complaint about the matter. I have discontinued this investigation. This is because Mrs X is not a suitable representative and has not herself suffered any injustice. The Council had already responded to F’s complaint via their advocate.

Summary: Ms X complained about delay in issuing her son’s Education Health and Care Plan following a review, and failure to communicate with her properly. The Ombudsman finds there was delay and poor communication. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse school transport assistance. He says his son is eligible as his mapping system shows the distance between home and school as more than two miles. The Ombudsman finds no fault with the Council’s decision.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about injuries her son suffered at school. This is because the complaint is late, and we have no jurisdiction to investigate complaints about what happens in schools.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has not completed a recommendation, from a previous Ombudsman investigation, to make a payment to benefit her son’s education. She says this has led to uncertainty and time and trouble from having to chase this up. The Ombudsman finds the Council to be at fault and recommends it makes the payment direct to Miss X.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not include the paternal extended family in decisions about contact with her brother’s children. We cannot investigate this complaint, because the law prevents us from considering issues that are being considered in court.

Summary: Ms B complains that the Council wrongly refused to provide free home to school transport for her son, C, after he changed schools but, instead, agreed to provide a free bus pass. Ms B says travelling on public transport and walking through busy streets causes C distress and anxiety because he has autism, ADHD and learning difficulties. The Ombudsman finds fault in the way the Council considered Ms B’s appeal. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms B and offer her a fresh appeal with a new panel, including the opportunity to attend the panel meeting and make verbal representations.

Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s consideration of Ms G’s request that her summer born daughter be allowed to decelerate her start at primary school so that she starts in the Reception year in September 2020 rather than year 1

Summary: There is no fault in the Council’s consideration of Ms B’s request that her son be allowed a decelerated start in Reception year of primary school in 2021

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has considered her application and appeal for transport to school for her daughter. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council and so we cannot question the merits of its decisions.

Summary: the Council was at fault in its handling of Ms D’s complaint and it will apologise and make the recommended payment to recognise the injustice this caused. There is no fault in the Council’s actions with regard to the rest of the complaint

Summary: The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to investigate his complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the Council’s handling of the complaint.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms J’s complaint about how in 2011 the Council did not properly conclude the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. This is because there is no compelling reason to disapply the rule on late complaints.

Summary: The independent admission appeal panel failed to properly consider the grounds of Ms G’s case before deciding it did not outweigh the admission authority’s case and upholding the appeal. This amounts to fault. The admission authority will arrange a fresh appeal with a different appeal panel to consider the appeal now