Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision to take the complainant’s children into care. This is because the complaint is made late and there is no good reason to consider it now.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we have no powers to consider complaints about what happens in schools.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way allegations about him were investigated. We found there was fault by the Council as the progress of the matter was not reviewed as often as it should have been. The Council should also have responded more appropriately to Mr X’s complaint. The Council should apologise to Mr X for this and review its procedures.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to respond to Mr B’s complaint about its social work involvement with his children. It has agreed to apologise, and to respond to the complaint.

Summary: Miss Z complains about the Council’s handling of her complaint about what it did in response to reports of her being abused as a child. We have upheld elements of Miss Z’s complaint and recommended a larger financial remedy as well as service improvements. The Council accepts our recommendations, so we have completed our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s late complaint about how the Council handled his children’s case. There is not a good reason Mr X did not bring his complaint to the Ombudsman sooner.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council fabricated a document leading to a foster child being removed from the complainant’s care. This is because the matter has been considered in court. In addition, an independent panel confirmed the Council’s decision to de-register the complainant as a foster carer.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council poorly managed the child protection investigation it carried out when his partner, Ms Y, was pregnant. He says this caused them distress and ill health. There was no fault in the action the Council took to safeguard the child. There was poor communication which caused Mr X and Ms Y uncertainty and distress. The Council has already apologised for this, which is an appropriate remedy.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled events around court proceedings related to his child. The substantive parts of his complaint are out of our jurisdiction because they are about decisions made by the court and the Council’s reports to court. We cannot achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council is at fault in deciding his children should remain subject to child protection plans. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Ms P complains the Council repeatedly contacted her over a child protection matter that did not concern her, harassing her and violating her right to private and family life. The Ombudsman agrees with the Council it was at fault over this and has recommended an improved remedy for the injustice. But in this case, we will not consider issues about harassment or a breach of human rights as these are matters for a court to decide on.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled an incident at his child’s school in 2017. This complaint is late and there is not a good reason Mr X did not complain sooner. In any event, we could not achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s report and information to the family court is flawed. We cannot investigate actions which relate to court proceedings.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son, F, with a suitable education and failed to meet his special educational needs set out in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between 2016 and 2019. The Council was at fault. It accepted during its stage 2 investigation into Mrs X’s complaints that it failed to provide F with a suitable full-time education or provide him with the provision in his EHC Plan between April 2017 and November 2019. The Council also failed to amend F’s EHC Plan within statutory timescales following annual reviews in 2017 and 2018. To remedy the injustice this caused F the Council agreed to pay Mrs X a total of £6,900 to use for F’s education benefit. It also agreed to pay Mrs X a further £500 to acknowledge the significant distress, uncertainty and time and trouble this caused her. The Council will also carry out service improvements.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to her son, Z’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained the Council delayed carrying out an assessment to determine if Z and his sibling were children in need. The Council was at fault when it delayed finalising Z’s EHC Plan, did not issue an amendment notification after his annual review and did not provide all the support in his Plan. The Council should make Ms X a payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused her and Z. The Council was at fault when it delayed in carrying out a child in need assessment, but this did not cause Ms X an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to provide C with transport to school. This caused C’s mother, Mrs B, an injustice because she had to transport C to and from school. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice to Mrs B.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled a child protection case relating to her child. We have stopped the investigation because the matters Mrs X raises are closely related to a current court case.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s late complaint about the Council’s actions leading up to the death of her stepson in 2013. This is because there is not a good reason for the significant delay in bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman. We also could not now carry out a fair investigation, nor could we add anything meaningful to the investigation that has already happened and the remedies the Council has already agreed.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council responded to his request for information. It is unlikely we could find any Council fault which could cause him a direct injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has failed to arrange a psychiatric assessment. He has recently appointed solicitors to handle a redress application to which this relates and it is reasonable to expect that process to continue.

Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council handled a safeguarding referral about his children and his complaints about this. There was no delay or clear evidence of bias in the Council’s handling. There was fault in the Council’s approach to Mr X’s complaints and it has agreed to take steps to remedy the distress and uncertainty caused to him and his family, and the avoidable time and trouble Mr X spent in making his complaints.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to plan properly for her disabled daughter, Miss T. She says this meant Miss T was unable to move into her university accommodation on time, delaying her transition towards independent living. The Council did not effectively coordinate planning for Miss T’s care, which caused her and Mrs X an injustice. The lack of planning caused avoidable distress. Mrs X also complains Council officers dismissed Miss T’s needs at a meeting attended to address the assistance she required. We consider that on balance, the Council should have been more sensitive to Miss T’s needs at the meeting, which would have been possible with better planning. We have made recommendations to acknowledge the distress caused and suggested service improvements to help avoid such issues arising in the future. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to follow the statutory process for her son’s education, health and care plan, reduced the provision without carrying out a review, wrongly stopped travel training and treated provision she had arranged as part of the Council’s provision. The Council’s communications about the education, health and care plan were not clear and created confusion, and the Council accepts it stopped travel training prematurely, which means Ms B’s son potentially missed out on some provision. An apology, payment to Ms B, agreement to discuss whether further travel training would be useful and the changes the Council has introduced to the annual review process is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in providing an Education Health Care Plan for Mrs X’s son, causing him to miss education. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the delay, make a payment to reflect the education her son missed and review its procedures.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s conduct of its Fair Access Protocol. The Ombudsman has completed our investigation. The Council failed to give Mr X the opportunity to contribute to the Panel. The Council should apologise, pay Mr X £150, and take action to improve its service.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council was at fault in its response to a safeguarding referral concerning her daughter. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Ms B’s complaint that the Council was at fault in declining to carry out an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. This is because Ms B has used the right to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council has been at fault in the process of identifying an appropriate school place for her son. This is because it was open to her to appeal about the outcome of the process to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal and it would have been reasonable for her to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council handled matters when his wife and child left the family home. This is because we could not achieve a meaningful remedy for Mr X. He seeks contact with his child and action against the individual social worker, which we could not achieve. There are other bodies better placed to consider the matters Mr X raises.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an incident in 2016, when she was threatened by a foster child in her care. This complaint lies outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because it is late. There are no good grounds to exercise discretion to consider this very late complaint now.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about what the Council recorded or failed to pass on. The outcome he seeks is one more appropriate for a court and it would be reasonable for him to return there.

Summary: We do not have the power to investigate this complaint about the Council’s report about children which has been considered in court.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the actions of social workers as these matters are not separable from the decision of a court about the residence of her grandchildren.

Summary: Mrs M complained that the Council failed to issue an Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales for her daughter, N. She says the Council also failed to act when N was out of school because of her anxiety. When she made complaints, the Council failed to answer them fully. This has caused her distress and time and trouble chasing the Council for responses. The investigation has found evidence of fault leading to injustice for Mrs M and N and a remedy to that injustice has been agreed.

Summary: Mrs M complains about an Independent Appeal Panel’s decision not to admit her son to a primary school. There is no fault in the Panel’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Summary: Miss Q complained an independent appeals panel had failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her daughter, R. This had caused the family significant upset. The Council has agreed to offer a fresh appeal.

Summary: A parent complained about the admission appeal panel’s decision to refuse his appeal about a place for his daughter at his preferred primary school. But we do not have reason to investigate the complaint. This is because there is no sign of fault in the way the panel dealt with the appeal which caused the parent an injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council would not fund her early years childcare business. It is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the way Kent County Council and the London Borough of Croydon responded when her daughter, child C, disclosed sexual abuse.

Summary: Mrs B complains about the way Kent County Council and the London Borough of Croydon responded when her daughter, child C, disclosed sexual abuse.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council’s children services team conducted a meeting with his family members. Mr X has not been caused a significant personal injustice.

Summary: Mrs F complains the Council delayed arranging a school admission appeal for her son. The Ombudsman has found no fault.

Summary: Mrs Q complained the independent appeals panel had failed to properly consider her appeal for a school place for her son, R. This had caused the family significant upset. The investigation found no evidence of fault.

Summary: Councils are required by law to secure between 570 and 1,140 hours of free childcare over no fewer than 38 weeks for qualifying children in their area. This is known as the Free Early Education Entitlement. Leicestershire County Council has an agreement with Kiddi Caru Day Nursery and Preschool in Market Harborough to deliver the Free Early Education Entitlement. Mr F complains he was charged a “top-up” by Kiddi Caru Day Nursery and Preschool in Market Harborough for childcare that should have been free. Both Kiddi Caru and the Council dismissed his complaint.