Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to arrange therapeutic support for the three children he cares for and did not offer a sufficient financial remedy for its failure. In addition, he said there were delays in how the Council dealt with his complaint. We found the Council was at fault for delaying the application for the Adoption Support Fund. The Council agreed to pay £500 each to all the children and to Mr X. We consider this is a suitable remedy.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s assessment of her as a possible carer for her grandchild and associated matters. The assessment is not separable from the child’s residence and contact arrangements, which have been and can only be decided by a court. Investigation of the remaining matters is not warranted by the claimed injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a court report and the court’s decision in family court proceedings because it lies outside our jurisdiction. The law prevents us from investigating matters that have been considered in court. We have no discretion to do so.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the disclosure of information by a school and the Council’s management of Mrs B’s subsequent complaint. This is because the substantive matter relates to the actions of a school.

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 by the panel, and so we cannot question the merits of its decision.

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 cannot investigate this complaint about a decision to remove the complainants children from her care. This is because the complaint concerns decisions made by the courts.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed responding to a request for financial support. This is because there is insufficient evidence of injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s responses to Mr X’s questions regarding the safety of his children with the new partner of his former partner. The evidence of fault is not sufficient to warrant investigation.

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

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the management of Miss B’s children’s care. This is because it concerns matters which have been, or will be, decided in court.

Summary: Mr X complained about errors during the Council’s school admissions appeals process. There was no fault in how the Council considered Mr X’s appeal. However, the Council’s procedures meant Mr X did not receive a written decision letter within the five-day statutory timescale. This was fault. This did not cause Mr X a significant injustice, but the Council’s procedures may be causing injustice to others. The Council has agreed to review its procedures to ensure it complies with its statutory obligations.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with the complainants family. This is because the issues raised by the complainant has been subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about reports and assessments used in Court proceedings. Other separable matters have not yet completed the Council’s complaint process.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaints about issues relating to B for whom she is their mother. B does not consent and therefore she is not a suitable representative.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with the complainants family. This is because it is unlikely we could add anything to the investigation the Council has carried out.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with his daughter’s education after she stopped attending school in 2019. This is because the events happened too long ago.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about advice given to the complainant on the phone regarding her allegations that her daughter’s school was not considering her welfare properly. This is because investigation could not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ actions in the 1970s. There are no good reasons we should not apply the late complaint rule.

Summary: Ms X complains about delay by the Council in complying with a Tribunal’s order to issue an amended education, health and care plan for her son. The Council is at fault as it contributed to a delay in complying with the Tribunal’s order and issuing an amended final EHC plan. The Council offered an apology and payment of £150 which is an appropriate and proportionate remedy for the avoidable time and trouble caused to Ms X.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed reviewing and amending her son, Y’s Education, Health and Care plan in preparation for his transition to post-16 education. The Council was at fault for not providing a formal decision after reviewing Y’s E, Health and Care plan and not securing the provision it specified. The Council agreed to apologise for the delay and pay Y £2700 to recognise his loss of education and social development and the impact on his wellbeing.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to carry out all the actions agreed to remedy her earlier complaint to the Ombudsman. The Council’s failure to make the provision in Miss Y’s EHC Plan or pay the agreed sum while this provision was not in place amounts to fault. This fault has caused Miss Y and Miss X an injustice.

Summary: Ms B complained that the Council failed to ensure her child received occupational therapy sessions specified in his Education, Health and Care plan. We found fault by the Council in this matter, causing injustice for which a remedy has been agreed.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about events inside a school. The law does not allow us to do so.

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: On the evidence currently available, we cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s children services team as the Court is currently considering the children’s care. We cannot investigate the school’s actions, and her housing problems are not a direct result of the Council’s actions.

Summary: We do not propose to investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services in considering her son’s care plan. This is because we cannot add to the Council’s previous investigations or change the outcomes.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has not provided financial support from 2010 after the complainant became responsible for looking after his grandchild. This is because it is a late complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the concerns raised by the complainant, Miss M, regarding the service her younger brother is receiving from the Council. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. We cannot accept a complaint from Miss M on behalf of her brother as she does not have responsibility for him. Additionally the Council has appropriately treated the issues raised as safeguarding concerns.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about who should care for her children and the contact arrangements with them. A Court considered and decided these. It is unlikely we could add to the Council’s reply on other day to day care matters.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s children services team refused to provide her with direct contact with her grandchildren. The Court recently decided the care arrangements for these children, and we cannot consider the same issues.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care provided for Mr B’s disabled son. This is because it would be reasonable for Mr B to take the matter to court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. Investigation is unlikely to lead to a worthwhile outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about data recording. Mr X has the right to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office, which is better placed to decide if the Council has maintained inaccurate data about him and to order rectification if necessary.

Summary: Mr X complains about a school admission panel’s decision to hold his appeal for a place for his son at his preferred school by written submissions. There is no evidence of fault in the appeal panel’s decision to consider Mr X’s appeal by written submissions. There is fault in how the appeal panel considered Mr X’s appeal so he cannot be certain it was properly considered. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by offering a fresh appeal to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the accuracy of Council records and the decision to issue a child protection plan. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: Based on the information I have seen to date, the Council included inaccurate information about its conversations with one of Mr B’s children in an assessment as part of a safeguarding investigation. It is unlikely that the outcome would have been different if this information had not been included, and the Council would still have made the children subject to Child Protection Plans. There was no fault when the Council did not share information with Mr B, and there is no evidence that it fabricated information or pressurised the children to give false information. The Council should apologise to Mr B, attach an addendum to the assessment correcting the inaccuracy, and share this with relevant professionals.

Summary: The Ombudsman does not find fault with the Council for its response to safeguarding concerns for Child X. The Ombudsman also does not find fault with the Council for how it shared information about a referral it received.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter, who has several disabilities, with social care support following her discharge from hospital in July 2020. The Council failed to investigate Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council agreed to arrange and start a stage 2 investigation under the complaints procedures within one month of the final decision. It also agreed to make a symbolic payment for the uncertainty and time and trouble this caused Mrs X.

Summary: We uphold Mr X and Mrs Y’s complaint. Essex County Council delayed handling their complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage two investigation. It will offer to make Mr X and Mrs Y a payment to remedy the time and trouble its delay caused them.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about a report used in Court proceedings, nor the Council’s actions and decisions in assessing the family. We have no legal power to investigate reports which form part of legal proceedings. And we cannot investigate the same issues a Court is considering.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss C’s complaint that the Council failed to provide appropriate support for her and other family members. This is because her complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council issuing child protection plans for Mrs X’s children. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant this.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her son’s education, health and care needs assessment and the provision in his plan. While there was fault in how the Council carried out the needs assessment, we cannot provide a remedy to Mrs X or her son. This is because she has exercised her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal. The Council has agreed to carry out service improvements.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council’s Special Educational Needs department has responded to enquiries. This because the complainant is making this complaint in his capacity as a governor at a school.

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

Summary: We discontinued our investigation. The Council considered Miss C’s complaint and made recommendations. Further investigation is unlikely to achieve a different outcome.