Summary: Ms M is unhappy with the Council’s response to her complaints. Most concern private family proceedings or are too old, so the Ombudsman cannot investigate them. There was no fault in the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral in February 2020.

Summary: Mr and Mrs D complained the Council failed to properly carry out the recommendations proposed by its review panel, causing them inconvenience, stress and to spend time following up the recommendations. The Council said it had completed the recommended action. The Council acted with fault as set out by its review panel and has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council’s investigation of her complaint under the statutory complaints procedure did not uphold all of her complaints. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint as we are unlikely to achieve anything worthwhile for Ms X by further investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of social workers in a matter that is and has been subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to amend her records. This is because she may raise her complaint with the Information Commissioner.

Summary: The Ombudsman found some fault by the Council on Miss D’s complaint of it failing to properly consider her late application request for her summer born daughter to start Reception class when she reached compulsory school age in September 2021. While an email it sent could have given clearer information about the process, this caused her no injustice. There was no fault on her remaining complaints about its decision.

Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council carried out the Education, Health and Care Plan process for her daughter, A. We did not find fault with the Council.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about issues which are part of or closely related to continuing Court proceedings. Another body is better placed to consider her data protection complaints.

Summary: We cannot investigate some of Mr X’s complaint against children services because it is about legal proceedings. We will not investigate other matters because they are too closely related to current Court proceedings.

Summary: Ms C complained the Council failed to respond to her Free School Meals application and provide the support she was entitled to. As a result, she said she experienced a financial loss. The Council reviewed the case and agreed it was at fault as it used an incorrect National Insurance number to assess her application. It has apologised to Ms C and made payment equal to the amount she would have received in Free School Meals and the Summer Holiday Scheme.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a personal budget for special educational needs. This is because the matter is currently part of ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her 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: The Council’s decision not to investigate Mr X’s late complaint about children’s services was not affected by fault.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council carried out a flawed child protection investigation. We find the Council was at fault when it did not adequately represent Mr and Mrs B’s views when it completed its assessment. It also failed to provide them with a copy of the assessment in sufficient time. The Council has agreed to my recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to properly communicate its decision about Mr X’s Supported Lodging application. This left Mr X unsure about the Council’s decision making and caused him to complain. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with the complainants family. The court is currently considering the care of the child concerned and we cannot investigate matters subject to legal proceedings.

Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to release information concerning his family. He also says council staff told his ex-partner to take legal action against him. We will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office as the most appropriate authority for his complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint alleging ‘underhand’ actions by council staff. This is because the issues Miss X raises cannot be separated from the matters already decided in the family court.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide her son, E, with an education for over six months. She says this failure continued and he is still not in education. She says this caused both her and E an injustice as E has been out of education for over a year and the ongoing situation has caused them both distress. The Council is at fault and has failed in its statutory duty to provide E with an education. I have made a recommendation to remedy the situation as soon as possible. I have also recommended that the Council make payments to Mrs X and E in line with our guidance on remedies for missed education.

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

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s involvement with a foster child who was placed with his family. He considered there was a lack of support when there were problems with the behaviour of the child and the Council permanently removed the child without following the proper process or considering what was in the best interests of the child. He said this caused him and his family distress. There was fault by the Council. It will apologise and make a payment to Mr and Mrs B.

Summary: Mr B complained about the Council’s involvement in the child protection concerns raised as part of his, and his wife’s, role as foster carers. He considered the Council did not ensure the process was impartial and followed proper procedures. He considered the outcome was flawed as a result and that has caused distress to him and his wife and led to their decision to resign as foster carers. The Council failed to refer the complaint to stage three of the statutory complaint process but that did not cause significant injustice to Mr B.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a report used in court. This is because the issues Miss X raises cannot be separated from the matters already decided in court.

Summary: Mrs X complains that the Council failed in its duty to ensure her son, B, was provided with a suitable education. Based on the evidence seen to date, the Council failed to demonstrate its decision- making in respect of B’s alternative education. The Council is also at fault in its complaints handling. The Council has caused injustice to Mrs X for which we recommend an apology and some service improvements.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to deal correctly with her application for home to school transport for her son. We found no fault by the Council in this matter.

Summary: Miss X complained about the arrangements for the independent admission appeal hearing for her son under the temporary COVID-19 rules. She also complained that the appeal panel did not consider the information she provided about her son’s medical condition properly. We have found that the delays in dealing with the appeal were not due to fault by the Council, but there was fault in the panel’s decision-making causing her uncertainty about its outcome. The Council has agreed to offer Miss X a fresh appeal.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s decision to suspend its vacant seat scheme on home to school transport during the COVID-19 pandemic. This means they have to transport their son to school. We find that the Council was not at fault in how it reached its decision. It acted in line with Government advice and guidance.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection referrals and the Council’s response to them. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing significant to be achieved by investigating.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel, and so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

Summary: Mr B complained about the way the Council recorded information and carried out assessments during a child protection investigation. We found fault with the Council. This did not cause Mr B a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate the complaint about the Council’s failure to provide support promised when the complainant obtained a Special Guardianship Order for her grandchildren. This is because there is no evidence of fault, and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Summary: We cannot lawfully investigate Ms X’s complaint about the loss of her children, the care plan for their future and the handling of contact. The complaints are part of court proceedings.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s children services teams actions in 2019. The events were either part of legal proceedings or too intrinsically linked to be able to be separated from those proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about children’s social care. The matter is being handled by the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services actions between 20 and 30 years ago. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a report used in court. This is because the issues Miss X raises cannot be separated from the matters decided in court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a report used in the family court. This is because the issues Miss X raises cannot be separated from the matters decided in the family court.

Summary: Ms G complains the Council reviewed her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan but then refused to recognise it as a review, which denied her a right of appeal to a tribunal. We uphold the complaint, finding the Council’s reasons for not recognising the review being incompatible with relevant legislation and guidance. We recommend the Council apologises, pays Ms G £250 for denying her a right of appeal to a tribunal and undertakes training with its staff.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the School’s Admissions Appeal Panel failed to provide her 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 X complains that the Council failed to provide speech and language therapy and a psychologist’s assessment set out in his son’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). The Council is at fault as it delayed in arranging the therapy and assessment. This has caused injustice. The Council has agreed a financial remedy.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about a report used in court. This is because the issues Miss X raises cannot be separated from the ongoing matters before the family court.

Summary: We cannot and should not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the way the Council replied to her complaint. This is because we cannot investigate the complaint she made to the Council about housing issues and should not investigate her complaint about one visit to her home.