Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s reports on a child protection matter because the evidence forms part of legal proceedings which we have no power to investigate. We will not investigate a complaint about how the Council behaved towards the complainant because it is too closely connected to current court proceedings for us to consider it separately.

Summary: Mrs M complained the Council had not properly considered her adoption application or fairly assessed her. She said the Council had discriminated against her due to her ethnicity and her husband’s mental health. She said this has stopped her being considered properly for adoption and caused delay and distress. The Council were at fault for not following the statutory guidance and have agreed to a remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs M.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a child protection matter. This is because the complaint is inextricably linked to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement in the complainants family. This is because it is unlikely we could add to the investigation the Council has carried out, or that our intervention would lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about an education attendance officer’s actions. It is unlikely we would find fault or that she has been caused any significant injustice by that alleged fault.

Summary: Mr C says the Council refused to provide him with information about his daughter, failed to act on safeguarding concerns he raised, produced an unbalanced child and family assessment, failed to see his daughter away from the family home when completing the assessment and delayed considering his complaint. There is no evidence the Council refused to provide Mr C with information about his daughter or any fault in how the Council obtained his daughter’s views. The Council failed to record its view for one of the safeguarding concerns, included some factually inaccurate information in the child and family assessment and delayed considering his complaint. An apology, training for officers and payment to Mr C is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about that the Council is at fault for refusing to cease her child’s Child Protection Plan. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Summary: The Ombudsman 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 and so we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision.

Summary: Ms W has made a complaint about various failings by the Council about her daughter who is a ‘child in need’. The Ombudsman has found several failings by the Council in this respect. Most notably, the Council pressured Ms W into housing her daughter despite the risk of harm she posed to herself and Ms W’s family. Further, the Council failed to effectively consider its legal duty to house Ms W’s daughter. This caused Ms W serious distress over a prolonged time. We have therefore recommended several remedies.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because some of the matters have been subject to court proceedings and others happened too long ago.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a court report and court costs incurred during legal proceedings. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The law says we cannot investigate matters which have been considered in court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about information the Council disclosed about him in court. This is because the law does not allow us to investigate anything that has formed part of legal proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the conduct of a council legal officer in her role as Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for the complainant with his child’s school, and the way in which the Council has handled complaints about the matter. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The substantive issue is out of our jurisdiction because it relates to someone carrying out a function on behalf of the governors and headteacher of a school. The Council’s actions in response to the complaints about the officer are also out of jurisdiction because they are in connection with something that is itself out of jurisdiction. Additionally allegations about breaches of GDPR should be made to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to reimburse him for the full cost of transporting his child to and from school. The Council was not at fault in the way it decided not to backdate Mr X’s increased mileage payments. It was at fault for the delay in responding to his request. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the frustration this caused. The Council was also at fault when it conflated its complaints procedure and school transport appeal process. It has agreed to take action to prevent this fault recurring.

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

Summary: The Council did not properly consider Mr C’s application for a blue badge relating to his four-year-old son’s autism. Its approach to processing applications for children with hidden disabilities is not in line with guidance, and in this case, it caused injustice to Mr C in the form of distress by not processing his application correctly. The Council has agreed to reconsider Mr C’s application.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council allegedly fabricating mental health reports. This is because part of the complaint relates to court proceedings and is out for our jurisdiction, and we cannot achieve the outcomes that the complainant seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with safeguarding concerns about a child. This is because the events happened too long ago and I see no reason why the complainant could not have complained about the matter sooner.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide support for his son, D, who has health and learning needs. We find the Council was at fault because it did not manage the case well and did not ensure an assessment for an Education, Health and Care Plan was carried out. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise, make payments to Mr X and review its practices.

Summary: Mr L complains about how the Chair of a Child Protection Conference handled a review meeting, including changing the category of harm. He also complains about how the Council dealt with his complaint about this matter. We uphold the complaint about the complaint handling. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s decision to refuse to allow her to supervise contact between a child and their father. We find fault with how the Council made its decision that it was inappropriate for family members to supervise contact. We have made recommendations.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s investigations into the conduct of Mrs X’s employee. This is because Mrs X has not been caused an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because the issues raised by the complainant have been subject to ongoing court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s portage service. This is not warranted by the claimed injustice, and we could not add to the investigation already carried out by the Council.

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: Ms X complained about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding investigation and failings in its complaints handling, which caused her frustration and distress. The Council was at fault for a delay in carrying out a further review and should apologise for the injustice caused.