Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an alleged breach of Mr X’s personal data. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Information Commissioner’s Office, not the Ombudsman, is the appropriate body to investigate Mr X’s complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council did not do enough to provide suitable education for his son, D, or get him back on the school roll after he withdrew D from school to home educate him. Mr X told the Council he did not want to home educate and had only withdrawn D because he did not think the school could keep him safe from the risk of COVID-19. We find that while the Council made considerable efforts to try and ensure D had a school place, it should have brought matters to a head sooner. The Council was at fault in failing to offer alternative education while it was trying to resolve the matter. The Council has agreed a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint about the Council’s actions in respect of his son’s special educational needs. This is because it is unlikely investigation would identify fault on the Council’s part causing injustice, and we cannot achieve what Mr B wants.

Summary: Miss Y complained about the way the Council dealt with issues relating to her role as a foster carer. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council in the time taken to complete its complaint handling process, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by making a payment to reflect the time and trouble this fault caused Miss Y.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to take action in 1997 and 1998 when concerns were raised about Ms X self-harming and being abused. The complaint is historic and lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are not good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: a nursery’s charge of £1 per hour for “consumables” is not a top-up fee, but the charges are not clear. The Council has agreed to work with the nursery to ensure its charges are clear, transparent and itemised, and parents understand how they can access free childcare without paying the charge when the nursery is delivering the Free Early Education Entitlement.

Summary: We do not find fault in the Council’s investigation of Miss Y’s complaint about child protection proceedings for her children, C and D. We do not uphold the points of complaint which Miss Y continues to dispute because they have been subject to a thorough and independent investigation. While the Council has already implemented most of the agreed outcomes, we find the Council should take the lead on one outstanding point. We also consider the existing remedy does not go far enough in providing redress for the personal injustice experienced by Miss Y and her family and the Council has agreed to pay £500 in recognition of this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s safeguarding involvement and actions in relation to the complainant’s daughter. This is because there is nothing we could add to the Council’s complaint response which explains why it will not consider the substantive matter until ongoing court proceedings have concluded.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to assess the complainants suitability for contact with children. Whilst there was a delay in the Council responding to Mr X’s request, this did not cause him an injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to investigate or answer questions about the way it dealt with a complaint about it placing a marker in its records that Mr X poses a risk to children. The complaint is not separable from the substantive matter of the marker, which is itself a late complaint with no good reason to exercise discretion to consider it.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because the events happened too long ago.

Summary: Ms D complains the Council failed to plan for the end of a section 20 agreement under the Children Act 1989. This agreement meant the Council accommodated her son, B, with other family members as a Looked after Child. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for not carrying out an independent investigation of the complainant’s concerns under the statutory complaints procedure of the Children Act 1989. This caused Ms D injustice as she missed out on having her complaint fully investigated by the Council. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to carry out the independent investigation and make Ms D a payment.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council did not secure suitable education provision her son and delayed reviewing his Education, Health and Care plan. Mrs B said her son missed education and EHC provision. We found fault with the Council for failing to secure education and Education, Health and Care provision for C. We also found delays in the Council’s EHC process. The Council will make a financial payment to Mrs B to remedy the injustice caused by these faults and make service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about non-compliance with the order of a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. Another Tribunal has since taken place and only such a Tribunal can consider the matter.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services’ actions. She has known about the events for more than 12 months and there are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with special guardianship payments for her grandson Y. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council took too long to carry out a parent-carer assessment. They also complained about subsequent difficulties with direct payment arrangements. We have discontinued this investigation at Mr and Mrs X’s request because the Council has agreed to consider the matter under its statutory children’s complaints procedure.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that officers spoke about the complainant in a public place. This is because the Council has provided a fair response.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with the complainants family. This is because the events happened too long ago.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the way the complainant has been treated by the Council in relation to her child. This is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s decision not to award home to school travel assistance for his child. He said the Council’s decision is unfair and caused him unnecessary stress and anxiety. We found fault in the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to consider a new appeal for Mr X and to review its school transport policy.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint because it is unlikely that we would be able to carry out a fair investigation into decisions made about Mrs X’s and her child’s care in 2002.