Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain that the Council has failed to offer them suitable housing. Based on the evidence seen to date, the Council was at fault, but had remedied the situation before the Ombudsman’s intervention.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint that the Council was at fault in taking her daughter into care. This is because the issue was subsequently decided in court. We cannot consider her complaint about the care her daughter received because she is not her daughter’s representative.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the behaviour of a social worker. This is because the events happened too long ago.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his daughter, F, received a suitable education to meet her special educational needs between September 2019 and July 2020 when she was unable to attend school. The Council was at fault. It failed to provide alternative provision during this period and failed to provide the educational provision for F in line with her Education, Health and Care Plan between January and July 2020. The Council agreed to pay Mr X a total of £3225 to remedy F’s loss of education. It also agreed to reimburse Mr X fees he paid for private tuition for F during this period.

Summary: Mrs X complains to the Council has failed to make educational provision set out in her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). She says it has also failed to meet statutory deadlines for completion of an annual review. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. The Council has agreed an apology, a financial remedy and service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about free school transport provision. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the special educational needs provision laid out by the Council in Mrs X’s child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is a matter for the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal to decide, not the Ombudsman.

Summary: We will not investigate the complaint about the refusal of admission to Mrs X’s preferred school for her daughter. This

Summary: We will not investigate Ms B’s complaint about the decision to refuse her appeal for a school place for her daughter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to offer an appropriate remedy after it upheld her complaint that it left her child without care and support for over three years. The Council is at fault. The Council upheld Mrs X’s complaint but the remedy offered does not reflect the level of injustice caused to Y. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X £18,200 in recognition of the 3.5 years lost care provision, to be used for Y’s benefit. It will also pay Mrs X £1100 to recognise the distress caused to her and the time and trouble taken bringing her complaint.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying considering complaints at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage two 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: Mr B complains that the Council was wrong to refuse his two children free school transport to their secondary school. We found no fault in the way the Council considered the decision to refuse transport and Mr B’s subsequent appeal. We cannot therefore question the merits of the Council’s decision.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed securing the special educational provision in her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. She said this had a negative impact on her son’s learning and social and emotional development. There was no fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide Mrs X’s daughter with free transport to school. This is because the Council has now agreed to Mrs X’s request and an investigation could not achieve anything more.

Summary: We do not have grounds to this complaint from a parent about the school admission appeal panel’s decision in her son’s case. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the appeal panel dealt with matters.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about matters concerning the Council’s actions between 2018 and 2020 in dealing with Mrs X’s children’s special educational needs. These matters have either already been investigated or found to be outside our jurisdiction, or they are ones where investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Summary: Mr X complains about the treatment he received from children’s services and the Council’s decision to remove his child from his care. There was some fault by the Council which caused injustice to Mr X, however the Council has apologised and put in place the recommendations from the children’s social care statutory complaints procedure which is a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what a social worker told Mr X’s family about his offences. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a Council not providing historic adoption records. This is because the Council signposted the complainant to the correct body to resolve her complaint. There is nothing further to be achieved by way of an investigation at this time.

Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to ensure she received speech and language therapy as set out in her Education, Health and Care Plan during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ms D says this has had a detrimental effect on her education, delaying her entering exams. We have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms D and her mother.

Summary: A parent complained that the school admission appeal unfairly rejected her appeal about the refusal of a place for her daughter at her preferred primarily school. However we do not have reason to start an investigation of the complaint as there is no sign of fault by the appeal panel.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the complainant’s school admissions appeal. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) made its decision.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council would not financially reimburse him for respite care it agreed to provide for his disabled son Y. We find the Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint as it is unlikely we would find fault with the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s complaint or the way it dealt with his requests for information.

Summary: The Council has unreasonably delayed responding to Mr B’s complaint about the consent form he was asked to sign. It has agreed to complete Stage 2 of the statutory complaints procedure, and to offer to make a payment to Mr B to recognise the time and trouble he has gone to in pursuing the matter, and the delay to Stage 2.

Summary: Ms E complained the Council failed to provide her son with the education and specialist provision required in his Education, Health and Care Plan from March 2019 onwards. She also complained the Council delayed matters after the annual review in November 2019. We find the Council was not at fault for not providing Ms E’s son with education and specialist provision. We also find the Council was not at fault for the delays after the annual review. However, we do find the Council delayed dealing with Ms E’s complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide services for her son E that were in line with the provision set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council accepted some failings in provision and offered a remedy. The Ombudsman does not intend to investigate this complaint further. Mrs X did not accept an offer made by the Council and complains that the Council failed to negotiate about the amount of money it would pay. However, the Council’s financial remedy is higher than any that the Ombudsman would be likely to recommend so an investigation would be very unlikely to achieve what Mrs X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the refusal of admission to the complainant’s preferred school for her son. This is because there is no evidence of fault in the way the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) hearing the appeal, made its decision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged failures in the conduct of a school admissions appeal. There is no evidence the Appeal Panel’s decision was affected by fault.

Summary: Mr and Mrs P complain about their de-registration as foster carers. The Council has properly considered their complaint and there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to question the outcome.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council failed to properly address her complaints about the way it handled the placements of her children. She does not consider the payment offered by the Council in recognition of fault is sufficient. We consider the level of distress caused by the Council’s actions warrants a higher remedy.

Summary: Miss Q complains about the Council’s delays in finalising an Education and Health Care Plan. And in it not putting any alternative education provision in place after her son stopped attending school. The Ombudsman upholds the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: Mrs B complains that the Council delayed in completing an education, health and care needs assessment for her son, C. She says it also failed to carry out a full needs assessment and failed to keep her informed about progress. There were delays in the assessment process and, as a result, C lost the benefit of a specialist placement for 12 months. The Council failed to keep Mrs B informed causing her distress and putting her to time and trouble. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs B.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council’s counselling service for young people handled a referral it received for her son, Y. We find the Council failed to respond to Mrs X’s emails and did not provide clear information about its counselling services. That has caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and unduly raised her expectations. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mrs X £200 for the injustice caused. It will also make service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the Council on Mrs Q’s complaint about how the appeal panel considered her appeal against the Council’s decision to refuse her son a place in Year 7 at her preferred school. It failed to ensure proper records of the hearing were made and the appeal panel wrongly assessed it at the second stage of the hearing. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about special educational needs provision and assessments. The issues are either being considered by a Tribunal or are not separable from that appeal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions during the Education Health and Care Plan process for her daughter. Mrs X has appealed the contents of the Plan. The law says we cannot consider a complaint where the substantive matter is being considered at a Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint that the Council was at fault in refusing her appeal for a school place for her daughter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault on the Council’s part.