Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to explain why the threshold for a safeguarding enquiry was not met. This is because the complainant can complain to the Information Commissioner.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council has placed his child in foster care and is allowing him only 45 minutes a week supervised contact. We cannot investigate court proceedings.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused to complete Education, Health and Care needs assessments for his two children. He said the Council upheld his complaint but has not yet paid him the financial remedy it offered. The Council was at fault. There was poor service and delay which caused Mr X frustration and distress. It has agreed to pay Mr X £300 to recognise the frustration and distress caused but also to recognise the further frustration caused by additional delay in completing the assessments after it upheld his complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide her with sufficient advice to make an informed choice about her options when she became a carer for her grandchild, Z. She said the Council then pressurised her into becoming a special guardian and had not provided enough financial support. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: Mr B complained to the Council about the service his brother received from children’s services. The Council considered this complaint under the children’s statutory complaint procedure. Mr B says there was fault with the Council’s complaint investigation. He is unhappy with the behaviour of the Chair of the stage three panel and not being able to use a projector. He says the Council did not make adjustments for his learning difficulty. The Council was at fault for a short delay in its stage 3 complaint response, but we do not consider this to have caused Mr B or his family significant injustice.

Summary: Mr C complains about the actions of the Council towards himself and his child, D. The Council considered his complaint at stage one of the statutory children’s complaints procedure but refused to further consider it at stage two. We find fault with the Council for denying Mr C the opportunity to progress his complaint through the statutory complaint’s procedure. An injustice was caused to Mr C by putting him to the time and trouble of complaining to the Ombudsman. To remedy the injustice the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr C, consider his complaint at stage two and make staff aware of this complaint to share learning from it.

Summary: Mr B complains about the actions of the Council’s Children’s Services. We have discontinued our investigation because it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome for Mr B.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council has refused to carry out a review of the removal of her son from her care and his subsequent adoption. This is because the matters were decided in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council has refused to allow his complaint to go to the final stage of the statutory children’s services procedure. This is because there is nothing significant to be gained by doing so.

Summary: Ms F complains the Council took too long to hold a review of her son’s EHC Plan and to issue an updated Plan. She says this has prevented her from using her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal and denied her son the SEN provision he needs. We have found fault. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms F.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Children and Families assessment carried out by the Council’s children’s services. This is because we cannot add anything to the Council’s responses and cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant wants.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in how it dealt with Miss B’s housing situation and in the social worker’s assessment of the needs of the family. The Council was not clear about whether it had decided it owed a homelessness duty to her. There were confusing entries in the Council’s Child and Family Assessment, and the Council did not send a copy of this to Miss B until she asked for it. The shortcomings caused Miss B distress and frustration. The Council should apologise to her, amend its records, and share this decision with relevant staff.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged discrimination by the Council. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault, we cannot achieve the outcome sought and the court is better placed to consider this complaint.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s response to her request for a change of social worker and other failings in the child protection process. We do not find the Council at fault in at first refusing a change of social worker, but there was some fault in the way it dealt with Ms X’s complaint about the matter. There was some delay in sending out minutes of at least one meeting. The Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and a remind staff of relevant timescales.

Summary: Mr F complains about the Council’s decision to refuse his son a Blue Badge. He says the decision puts his son and others at risk of harm. We have found no fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman has completed its investigation. The Council has agreed to investigate Mr Y’s complaint through the statutory children’s complaints procedure in accordance with the Children Act and the statutory guidance.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services assessments. This is because it is reasonable to expect Mr Y to take the matter to court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about an extended family member’s care arrangements, as the Court is currently considering this. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an officer’s actions assigned to a child as Mr X does not have parental responsibility for the child involved.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to investigate allegations of sexual abuse and failed to provide documents he requested. We should not investigate the complaint because we are unlikely to find fault with the Council’s decision not to investigate and the Information Commissioner is best placed to handle the complaint about failure to provide documents.

Summary: Mr X complained about the outcome and timeliness of the Council’s safeguarding investigation into his actions as a carer. The Council was not at fault in how it carried out the safeguarding investigation. It was at fault for its communication and complaints handling. This caused Mr X unnecessary distress and uncertainty. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mr X and to amend its complaints policy.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of a children’s safeguarding enquiry and his subsequent complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council failed to put in place the support in his grandson’s Education Health and Care Plan, and failed to deal with his complaint properly. The Ombudsman finds there was no failure to arrange the provision. Mr X’s daughter decided not to send her son to the school named in the Plan while she appealed. There was some delay in the complaint handling but the Council has apologised for this. This is a sufficient remedy.