Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to complaints of overcharging for nursery care. This is because further investigation would not add anything to the Council’s previous investigation, and we cannot achieve the outcomes the complainant seeks.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue her son with an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the SEND tribunal. Mrs X’s complaint about data protection issues is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss 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: We will not investigate Mrs 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: Ms B complained about the way the Council investigated concerns about her care of her children. She said the Council’s actions and the lack of support meant she had to leave the area. There was fault by the Council that caused injustice to Ms B. The Council will apologise and make a payment to her.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has failed to provide her and her children with appropriate social care support. This resulted in distress, financial loss and negative outcomes for the family. The Council has accepted fault, but Mrs X says its proposed remedy is inadequate. The Council has agreed an enhanced remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the level of Special Guardianship Allowance paid by the Council. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no reason why the complainant couldn’t have asked us to investigate sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement in her family, which led to her daughter being adopted in 2016. This is because this decision was made during court proceedings.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying considering a complaint at stage one of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage one investigation without further delay and will offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble its delay has caused her.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss 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: Mrs X complained that the Council failed in its statutory duty to provide her with support as a foster carer. She also says the Council failed to pay her in line with the relevant guidance and failed to properly deal with her complaint. She says these faults caused her an injustice because she felt unsupported throughout her time as a foster carer and was paid significantly less than she should have been. We have found the Council was at fault. We have made recommendations to improve its complaints procedure and to backpay Mrs X what she should have been paid, as a long-term foster carer. We have also asked the Council to contact others who might have been in a similar position to Mrs X.

Summary: We find fault with the Council for refusing to consider Mr B’s complaint through the children’s statutory complaint procedure. This caused Mr B an injustice. The Council agrees actions to remedy the injustice.

Summary: The Ombudsman found no fault by the Council on Ms F’s complaint about an officer inappropriately communicating with her former partner’s wife about issues subject to ongoing private court proceedings to which neither were parties. We are not satisfied the evidence justifies a finding of fault in these circumstances.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mr X’s children because it is a late complaint. We will also not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has recorded information about his convictions as this is a matter for the Information Commissioner.

Summary: We will uphold Ms X’s complaint, as the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage three review panel without further delay. It will make a payment to Ms X to remedy the time and trouble its delay caused her.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a letter the Council sent to the complainant about his communications with a school. This is because we cannot investigate the way a school manages its communication with parents, or the Council’s involvement in that.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about a social worker’s actions at a visit. It is unlikely we would find fault, and Social Work England is better placed to consider a complaint about the officer’s professionalism.

Summary: The Council is at fault in that it has unreasonably delayed responding to Mrs B’s complaint about its management of the case relating to her and her daughter. The Council has agreed to appoint an Investigating Officer and begin Stage 2 of the statutory complaints procedure, and to offer to make a payment to Mrs B to remedy the unnecessary uncertainty and distress she has been caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not paid the complainant at the same level as a foster carer, with the same skills, who is unrelated to the child they care for. This is because the Council is going to re-assess the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint that the Council is at fault in its response to his concerns about his son’s welfare. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: the Council delayed reviewing Mr C’s daughter’s education, health and care plan, failed to carry out proper transition planning and failed to carry out a social care assessment. An agreement to carry out a social care assessment, apology to Mr C and his daughter and payment to both parties is satisfactory remedy.

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

Summary: A parent complained that the Council treated her unfairly by refusing her appeal for a place for her daughter at her preferred primary school while at the same time agreeing to admit another child. But we do not have grounds to investigate this matter because there is insufficient sign of fault by the Council or the appeal panel.

Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council failed to progress her adoption assessment and delayed in dealing with her complaint about it. This delayed her approval as an adopter by over two years. The Council accepted the failings, apologised to Ms B and offered her £2000. We agreed the Council was at fault and that the payment is appropriate to put right the injustice. The Council has agreed to assist Ms B to progress a new application now.

Summary: the Council’s response to concerns raised by Mr and Mrs P’s fostering agency identified serious failings with the Council’s removal of a child they fostered. The Council has not, however, responded to Mr and Mrs P’s complaint. The Council has agreed to consider their complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate how the Council responded to Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaints related to 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. We have already investigated most of their complaints and we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s ongoing communications with Mr X and Mrs Y.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to secure the special educational provision in an EHC plan. This led a child to lose out on education and placed additional strain on the family. Recommendations for an apology, financial payment and service improvements are made.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son’s Education Health and Care Plan and his special educational needs support following a Tribunal decision. The Council failed to take reasonable steps to put the support in place during the COVID-19 lockdown, and delayed in reviewing his Plan. This meant Y lost the opportunity to receive support he needed and there was a failure to plan for his future, causing him anxiety and uncertainty. The Council has agreed a remedy, including payments and a review of procedures.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed her son’s Education, Health and Care plan review process and did not deliver all the provision in her son’s plan. Mrs B said her son lost provision and she was put to time and trouble chasing the Council. The Council was at fault for failing to hold annual reviews and ensuring C received the provision he was entitled to. The Council has taken some steps to remedy the injustice caused by its faults. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment to Mrs B to remedy the outstanding injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of the review of her son’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan and lack of therapy provision during the COVID-19 lockdown. We find that the Council delayed issuing the EHC Plan but this did not disadvantage Mrs X’s son. The Council took reasonable steps to deliver therapy provision when services were suspended because of the pandemic.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the provision of the Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) assessment specified in her son, Mr S’s, Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed putting into place transport arrangements to college which then proved to be unsuitable. The Council was at fault when it delayed in ensuring the SaLT assessment took place. This caused Mrs X and Mr S an injustice. The Council should make a financial payment to recognise this. There was no fault in the transport arrangements the Council put into place or the timing of those arrangements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding referral. There is not enough evidence the Council’s actions had any effect separately from court action Ms X had already begun which we cannot investigate. We would not be able to add anything more to the outcome and the matters complained about were or could have been considered in court. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is better placed to consider complaints about information handling.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr B’s complaint about alleged fault on the part of the Council’s Local Authority Designated Officer. This is because it relates to matters which the law says we cannot investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding the placement of three children with Ms B and her partner. This is because we would be unable to add anything significant to the investigation the Council has already carried out.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide financial support to Mrs X when she began caring for her granddaughter. This is a late complaint as Mrs X has taken nearly three years to bring it to us.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child, and delayed making provision to meet their special educational needs. Mrs X says this resulted in a loss of education for her child and uncertainty and distress to the family. We have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed carrying out the annual reviews for her children’s Education, Health and Care plans, and delayed issuing the plans after the reviews were carried out. She also complained the Council did not follow the correct process for a child transitioning to a new setting. Mrs X says this caused avoidable stress to her and meant her children were left with outdated plans. We have found fault by the Council and the Council has agreed a remedy to address the injustice caused.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in the way it considered an application for school transport made on SEN / mobility grounds. There was also delay in responding to the complaints / appeal so transport was not in place in time for the start of the school year. The Council will apologise, backdate transport payments and pay £100 for the complainant’s time and trouble.

Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to reject his appeal about the Council’s refusal of a Reception place for his son at his preferred primary school. But we do not have grounds to investigate this complaint because there is no sign of fault by the panel.