Summary: Mrs X complains the Council withdrew 80 hours a year of mentoring support for her son without properly assessing his care needs. The Ombudsman finds the Council was at fault for ending the mentoring support when Mrs X refused to accept funding via direct payments. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment for the mentoring support funded by Mrs X including a shortfall of 40 hours and make a payment to acknowledge the distress caused by the Council’s faults.

Summary: the Council failed to follow the statutory children’s complaint process by refusing to take Mrs B’s complaint to stage two. The Council should now arrange for a stage two investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to allegations of historical and on-going abuse. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is no evidence to support the allegations made against the Council. Additionally the events complained of to the Council date from many years ago when the complainant was a child, and that part of the complaint is therefore made late. There are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate the complaint now.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s children services team not assessing her as a carer for her children. We could not achieve the outcome she seeks as the Court decided the children’s care arrangements.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the conduct of a social worker. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with his complaint, and he is also able to raise his concerns with Social Work England.

Nottinghamshire County Council (21 002 599)

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council delayed issuing his son’s Education Health and Care Plan. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant this.

Summary: Mrs G complains about her son not being allocated a place at their chosen secondary school. The case was heard before an appeal panel, and the clerk did not properly record the decision making as detailed in the Schools Admissions Appeal Code. This has caused Mrs G, and her son, stress and anxiety. The Council has agreed to hold a fresh appeal with a new panel and clerk.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the accuracy of the Council’s risk assessment guidance to schools. We cannot investigate the internal management of schools.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to agree to the complainant’s request for the school transport to drop her child off at an after-school club several times a week. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision.

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

Summary: We cannot consider Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for his daughter. This is because the law prevents us from considering complaints about admission appeals for academy schools.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the care provider acting on behalf the Council failed to properly supervise a child in its care while at an indoor play area. As a result, he bit her grandchild causing injury and distress. The Ombudsman finds no fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the level of support the Council’s children’s services provided to the complainant, when he and his children moved to a different area. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr C’s complaint that the Council was at fault in its involvement with him and his children. His complaint is late, and it is unlikely we could add anything significant to the investigation already carried out.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the level of support the Council provided her when she began to care for two children in 2013. This is because this is a late complaint and we cannot investigate it.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decisions on a looked after child’s care. It is unlikely we would find significant fault causing Mrs X direct injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a Section 7 report and the conduct of the social worker involved in his case. This is because we cannot investigate what happens in court. This includes the content of court reports. It is reasonable for Mr X to raise his concerns in court, and he has the option of contacting the regulatory body for social workers in England.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her nephew, Mr N, received some of the provision specified in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council was at fault when it failed to ensure some of the special educational provision in Mr N’s EHC Plan was provided. This led to Mr N missing out on support he required and caused Ms X distress and frustration. The Council was also at fault in the way it handled Ms X’s complaint. It has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X and Mr N £4,000 and make service changes.

Summary: We cannot and should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about home to school transport. There has been no injustice incurred since the last Tribunal decision. Mr X has applied to the Tribunal again and we cannot consider inextricably linked matters.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not take timely action to respond to Mrs X’s concerns about her daughter Y’s non-attendance at school. The delay caused Y a loss of three months’ education. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise and make payments set out in this statement.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s actions in relation to her son’s special educational needs. She says the Council did not provide her son with the special educational provisions as set out in his EHC plans, and did not provide suitable alternative provision. We find fault with the Council’s actions and have made recommendations.

Summary: A man complained about the Council’s consultations over the closure of a school. But we do not have grounds to investigate this matter. This is because the Council has now suspended its closure plans, and we are unlikely to achieve a more worthwhile outcome in the circumstances.

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: We will not investigate Miss B’s complaint about the decision to refuse her application and appeal for a school place for her daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: The Ombudsman has decided to discontinue our investigation of Ms Y’s complaint that the Council failed to make a referral to its Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) after she raised safeguarding concerns about the actions of her son’s headteacher. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools and any actions of the Council that are inseparable from such events.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the outcome he seeks is being considered by us in another complaint Mr X’s representative has submitted on his behalf. We have decided to discontinue this investigation to avoid duplication.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s actions which are linked to private law proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that are being, or have been, considered in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the actions of children services. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s children services teams actions in 2017 and 2018. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the preparation and content of assessments and reports ordered by the Court or used in Court proceedings. We cannot investigate these as they form part of legal proceedings.

Summary: fault by the Council in securing a school place for Mrs X’s son, B, caused delay and uncertainty, and the special education provision B required was not in place when he started school. The Council has agreed a remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained about fault in the arrangements for the school admission appeal for her daughter. The Council was not at fault as the reasons for its actions were related to the COVID-19 pandemic and the temporary rules that applied. We do not find fault in the appeal panel’s decision-making.

Summary: Mr X complains there was fault in how an appeal panel considered his appeal for a place for his son at Madani Boys School. This was a fresh appeal following a previous Ombudsman’s investigation. We consider there is fault in how the appeal panel considered Mr X’s appeal as it did not consider his appeal on the basis of the original papers which disadvantaged him. The School has agreed to remedy this injustice by arranging a further fresh appeal with a different appeal panel and clerk.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint concerns matters that involve in legal proceedings and Police investigations which are outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the contents of a report submitted in family court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from considering complaints about matters that have been considered in court proceedings. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: Miss X complained about delays and errors in the EHC plan process. She complained the Council ignored her comments on the draft plan, lost her son, Mr Y’s medical records, and that the final plan contains incorrect information. Miss X also complained the Council wrongly treated her son as an adult and refused to correspond with her. There is no evidence of fault on the part of the Council in the way it has dealt with Mr Y’s EHC Plan. Nor is there evidence the Council has refused to communicate with Miss X or ignored her requests for reasonable adjustments.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions leading to the naming of a school in Mrs X’s daughter’s Education Health Care Plan. This is because Mrs X appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Education Needs and Disability).

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

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council dealt with her family’s social care matters and its handling of her complaint. The Council was at fault in its complaint handling process. This caused Ms X time and trouble pursuing her complaint and she was denied an independent investigation. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: Mr C complained about a school admissions appeal hearing for his son. We have stopped investigating the complaint because Mr C’s son has now been offered a place at his preferred school and we could not achieve a better outcome than this for the complainant.

Summary: Mr C complained about a school admissions appeal hearing for his son. We have stopped investigating the complaint because Mr C’s son has now been offered a place at his preferred school and we could not achieve a better outcome than this for the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the content of Mrs X’s son’s Education Health and Care Plan. This matter has a right of appeal to a Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan. This is because the complaint is late with no good reasons to consider it now.