Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council wrongly refused her child a fare-paying place on a school bus. Mrs X’s child now has a place on the bus. We have discontinued out investigation because it is unlikely further investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a school’s decision to refuse face to face schooling for the complainants daughter. This is because the actions of schools are out of our jurisdiction and the courts have said that we cannot investigate a complaint about any action by a council, concerning a matter which is itself out of our jurisdiction.

Summary: Miss X complains that the Council responded inappropriately on learning she had made an allegation to police about a former partner. She says the Council’s handling of her complaints was inadequate and that the Council has placed demands on her that affect her ability to find future employment. The Council is at fault. It has agreed to hold a fresh investigation into Miss X’s complaints and to provide a financial remedy for the delay and for Miss X’s time and trouble.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of a children services assessment and its sharing. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed and it is unlikely we would achieve a significantly different outcome than already offered.

Summary: We will not investigation this complaint about the Council’s actions which resulted in the complainants child being taken into care. This is because the complaint is late and there is no good reason why it could not have been made sooner.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to provide suitable home to school transport for her son and did not consider her appeal properly. We find that the Council was at fault in the way it considered her appeal. It has agreed to give her an opportunity to make another appeal including the chance to present her case in person. It will also review of the wording of its school transport policy on involving parents in making the transport arrangements.

Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to provide solo school transport as it agreed to do, failed to provide her with support when she homeschooled her daughter, delayed increasing her daughter’s education provision, recorded inaccurate comments about her mental health in an assessment and wrongly said her daughter was not entitled to services from the disabled children’s team. The Council’s communications around the outcome of the transport appeal were poor and its complaint response contained incorrect information about her daughter’s entitlement to services from the disabled children’s team. That caused Miss B frustration. An apology is satisfactory remedy. There is no fault in the remainder of the complaint.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain about the way the Council handled the provision of social care support for their daughter. There was fault by the Council that caused injustice to Miss Y and Mr and Mrs B. It will apologise and make a payment to them.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in the way it handled an EHC assessment and in failing to secure provision in an EHC plan. This caused Y to miss out on special educational provision at an important stage of his development. The Council will apologise, pay the complainants £3000, and make service improvements.

Summary: Ms X complained the school admissions appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for her child to attend year 1 at the school. There was no fault in the way the panel considered the appeal.

Summary: Ms X complained the school admissions appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for her child to attend year 1 at the school. There was no fault in the way the panel considered the appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Q’s complaint about special educational needs provision for children in Cheshire East Council’s area. This is because Mrs Q’s injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, nor will further investigation lead to a different outcome. And we cannot investigate what happened in Mrs Q’s children’s school.

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s Special Educational Needs department, and about the Council’s response to his subsequent complaint. This is because Mr B makes his complaint in his capacity as Chair of Governors at a school.

Summary: We consider that Halton Borough Council did not clearly explain the section 47 enquiry process or explain why it changed its supervision arrangements for Mrs X’s daughter. That was distressing for Mrs X. Also, we consider the Council, Warrington & Halton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Halton Clinical Commissioning Group’s poor complaint handling led to significant delays which caused Mrs X frustration and time and trouble.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council considered her complaints about its dealings with her while her children were in foster care. We have found no evidence of fault so have completed our investigation.

Summary: The Ombudsman has decided to discontinue the investigation of Miss X’s complaint that an Independent Appeal Panel refused to admit her son to her preferred school. This is because Miss X’s son has settled in well to his new school and no longer wishes to be considered for a place at their original preferred choice. This means there is no worthwhile, achievable outcome for Miss X that justifies investigating her complaint.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused to grant her child, Z, free school transport following a house move, despite providing free school transport to Z’s sibling. The Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council has manipulated and diverted matters since her child complained of harm at school in 2016. The matters complained of lack specific details and are also mostly historic. There is no good reason to investigate them now and we cannot investigate the actions of a school.

Summary: Mr H complains of bias by a social worker, towards his ex-wife, in a safeguarding assessment about his son. We have found fault with assumptions a Council officer made. And with some of the record keeping. But the actions the Council has taken or suggested, together with an apology, provides a suitable remedy for the faults identified.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council failed to take action to safeguard his daughter. This is because the complaint concerns matters which were considered and decided in court.

Summary: We will not and cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to carry out a detailed investigation into his child protection report in July 2020. We cannot investigate the same issues a Court is considering and it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to taken no further action.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide suitable educational provision for her son and to find him a suitable placement at a specialist school. She also says it took too long to issue him with an Education Health Care Plan. We found fault with the Council and it agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council handled her son’s Education Health and Care Plan. We found the Council delayed finalising the Plan which led to Mrs X’s son being in inappropriate education for longer than necessary. We recommended a remedy.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault on Mrs W’s complaint about the Council failing to provide for her son’s free home to school transport as it refuses to pay for the inward and outward journeys when he is not in the car. The Council’s weekly payment covers all her travel costs to and from school. Mrs W failed to show she is out of pocket from this decision.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the conduct of a social worker and a report she wrote for the court. This is because the law says we cannot investigate any matter that forms part of legal proceedings.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss B’s complaint that the Council’s social worker made false allegations against her and lied in the course of court proceedings. This is because we cannot investigate what happens in court, and cannot achieve the outcome Miss B wants.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council wrongly declined an appeal against its decision not to provide her child with assisted transport to school. Mrs X says the Council’s decision has adversely affected her child’s mental wellbeing. She would like the Council to provide her child with assisted transport and to review its school transport policy. We find no fault in the Council’s actions and have concluded our investigation.

Summary: Mr B complains about the Council’s handling of matters relating to the care of his two grandsons and his related complaints. The Council has already apologised, made a payment to Mr B and taken steps to address the issues highlighted by the independent complaint investigation, which is an appropriate response to the injustice caused. We make no further recommendation to remedy the faults identified.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to consider his representations about not being able to work when asking him to sign an agreement to supervise his daughter with her children, threatened his daughter she could lose her children when she was pregnant, provided conflicting advice, delayed considering his complaint and failed to tell him what action the Council had taken to improve its processes following his complaint. The Council delayed considering Mr B’s complaint. There is no fault in the remainder of the complaint. An apology and payment to reflect Mr B’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed carrying out her son’s annual review, issuing his final amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and consulting with secondary schools.