Summary: Ms Y complains the Council failed to provide her son, G, with appropriate educational provision in line with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She says this resulted in him missing two years of education. We find fault by the Council in how it applied its policy on alternative provision and the lack of education provided to G. We recommend the Council apologises, pays G a financial remedy to be used for education, social and mental health purposes, pays Ms Y a financial remedy for distress, time and trouble and looks at lessons that can be learnt from this case.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council wrongly refused to provide free school transport for her daughter, D, from September 2020. The Council accepted it did not direct Mrs X to its policy so she was not aware she could make verbal representations during her appeal. The Council agreed to accept a fresh appeal from Mrs X and give her the opportunity to make verbal representations. The Council also agreed to amend the wording in its policy that requires appeals to always be made in writing.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not providing the complainant’s son free transport to school. This is because we have seen no evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision to refuse to provide free school transport.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a special educational needs assessment. The specified time to complete the assessment is not yet ended.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Independent Appeal Panel (IAP) failed to properly consider the complainant’s appeal for a school place for her son. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the IAP made its decision.

Summary: Mr A complained the Council refused to deal with his concerns about the care and medical treatment of his son. He also said it had wrongly restricted his access to its services. As a result, Mr A said he experienced uncertainty and distress. The Council agreed it was at fault on some parts of Mr A’s complaint. It offered a payment to Mr A and made service improvements. We found the Council’s remedies to be appropriate to address the injustice caused and improve its services. We found no fault in the Council decision or its review of the restrictions it imposed on Mr A, as it acted as set out in its Policy. In addition, a court has since considered information relevant to Mr A’s complaint about his son’s medical treatment and information sharing. We cannot therefore consider this matter further.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an autism assessment cancelled in 2015. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: There was delay by the Council in issuing an EHC plan which delayed appeal rights and a school move. There was also a failure to consider social care needs during the assessment. This caused distress, uncertainty and loss of support for an extended period. The Council will apologise, make service improvements and make a financial payment to the family.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council reneged on an agreement made at mediation in relation to the social care provision in her daughter, Ms D’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained the Council should have provided support to Ms D on the mornings she attends college to ensure she leaves the house. On the evidence seen so far, the Council was not at fault.

Summary: There was no evidence of fault by the Council in ensuring a child received the special educational provision in their Education, Health and Care plan. There was however fault in failing to provide appeal rights after reviews of the Plan. The uncertainty of whether an earlier appeal may have led to additional or different education being provided is an injustice. Recommendations for an apology, financial payment and service improvements are made.

Summary: We did not find fault with the Council’s decision not to refund the cost of a travel pass Mrs X bought for her daughter. However, there was fault in the Council’s failure to communicate its decision not to recover the outstanding debt on the account. That Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and tell other customers of its decision not to recover outstanding debts on travel passes for the 2020-2021 academic year.

Summary: Mr X complains that the Council has delayed in issuing his daughter B’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and failed to arrange provision. He also says the Council’s communications are poor. Based on the evidence seen to date, the Council is at fault and has caused injustice. It has agreed a financial remedy and to hold an annual review.

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: Mrs B complained about the actions of the Council in dealing with her complaint about a child protection investigation. The Council and Mrs B asked the Ombudsman to consider the complaint, as an early referral, after stage two of the procedure had been completed. We did not agree that the early referral criteria have been met. The Council has agreed to hold a stage three review panel and pay Mrs B £150 for the delay in completing stage two.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with the complainant’s family when she was a child. The complaint is historic and lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late. There are not good grounds to exercise discretion to consider it now.

Summary: There was fault in the way the Council carried out a statutory assessment for special educational needs and in failing to provide suitable full-time education when a pupil was unable to attend school due to anxiety. This caused distress, uncertainty and led to the child missing out on education for an extended period. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment and carry out service improvements.

Summary: Mrs F complained the Council has not provided her son with the specialist provision required in his Education, Health and Care plan after a Tribunal order. We find the Council was at fault for not holding an annual review within 12 months. However, this did not cause Mrs F or her son an injustice.

Summary: Ms X complains about the way the Council managed her son’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan and transition to adulthood. The Council made decisions too late, outside the EHC process, and without involving the family or other services. This was fault and caused significant distress and inconvenience to the whole family. Recommendations for an apology, financial payment and service improvements are made. The complaint is upheld.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with a school. This is because the complainant is complaining about matters that happened whilst she was a Governor at the school. She is therefor not complaining as a member of the public.

Summary: Miss B complained about the actions of the Council when she and her partner, Mr C were foster carers. We cannot find fault with the actions the Council took.

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

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to take his views into account or provide adequate support when drawing up his Education, Health and Care Plan and sourcing a suitable school placement for him. He said this negatively impacted his educational development and caused him stress and upset. There was no fault in the Council’s actions.

Summary: there is fault by the Council in its delayed response to the complaint but that this did not cause injustice so no remedy is justified. The other parts of the complaint have been put before the SEND Tribunal and they are not therefore matters that this office can address now

Summary: A parent complained about the independent appeal panel’s refusal of her appeal for a Reception place for her daughter at her preferred primary school. But we do not have sufficient grounds to investigate this matter. This is because any fault by the panel did not cause the parent an injustice which warrants our further involvement.

Summary: Ms X complained on behalf of herself and her son, Mr Y, about the way the Council handled safeguarding for Mr Y. The Council accepted fault but failed to adequately remedy the injustice it caused. The Council has agreed to implement actions to remedy the injustice. If the Council fails to implement the agreed actions, it will convene an independent review panel, as per stage 3 of the children’s statutory complaint procedure, to look at the outstanding matters.

Summary: We upheld a complaint from Ms D about actions the Council took to safeguard her, and the support it offered her as a care leaver. We found the Council carried out an inadequate assessment and failed to help Ms D to gain access to and make best use of services. These faults create uncertainty for Ms D about what effect further support might have had on her well-being. The Council agreed to apologise and offer a payment to Ms D to remedy this injustice. It will also offer her help to access services.

Summary: the payment of £2000 by the London Borough of Brent to the complainant to recognise the injustice caused by its failure to provide her with adequate leaving care support was satisfactory and no further payment is justified. There is no fault in relation to the other parts of the complaint about the Council’s actions and the support it provided later on.

Summary: Mr X complains about the actions of the Council’s children services following the death of his child. He also complains about the findings of a serious case review. We are discontinuing our investigation. This is because most of Mr X’s complaints are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. For the remaining complaints within jurisdiction, we do not consider it proportionate to investigate further.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the removal of Miss C’s children from her care. This is because we cannot investigate matters which have been decided in court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in preventing Ms X’s child returning to her care. The child’s residence has been decided by a court order, and Ms X has exercised her right to return to court.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying considering a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has now completed its stage two investigation and has agreed to offer to make a payment to the complainant to remedy the time and trouble its delay has caused him.

Summary: There was a delay in an assessment for an Education and Healthcare (EHC) plan because of a quarantined email but there is not enough information to determine what happened and if there was fault. The Council issued an EHC plan within 20 weeks. The fact that it did not name a school was not fault and Mr X appealed the contents of the EHC plan to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint relating to the Council’s decision not to carry out an Education Health and Care assessment for the complainants daughter. This is because the complainant appealed the decision to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council was at fault in the way it carried out an assessment and prepared an Education Health and Care Plan for her son as it took too long and did not consult with her. We have found no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered these matters so have completed our investigation.

Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (21 006 094)

Summary: the Council failed to communicate its decision making to Miss B clearly when carrying out a safeguarding investigation, failed to provide her with adequate support, delayed providing her with reports and minutes and delayed dealing with her complaint. There is no evidence of delay in the section 47 process. Procedural changes already introduced by the Council are satisfactory, alongside an apology and payment to Miss B.

Summary: We do not find fault in the investigation of Miss Y’s complaint about the Council’s social care involvement with 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. However, we are not satisfied the Council has fully completed all parts of the agreed remedy, so it will undertake the actions listed at the end of this statement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council; transferring an account out of Miss X’s name. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the involvement of the Council’s children’s services with the complainants family. This is because the matter is subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action in 2017. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to investigate it now.

Summary: there was fault by the Council in its handling of Ms B’s complaint in the form of delay and lost opportunity to have the matter considered under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. There is no fault in its consideration of her requests for support which were properly conducted in the form of a number of assessments of the family’s needs.

Summary: the Council was at fault because it failed to meet its duty to ensure provision of occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and of access to a keyboard for Ms B’s son as detailed in his Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Ms B’s son injustice as he missed out on this provision. The Council will take the agreed action to recognise this injustice.

Summary: There is no fault in how the Council assessed and reported on the child protection concerns about Miss X’s children. There is some fault in the Council’s failure to consider whether Miss X needed any reasonable adjustments. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £200.