Summary: Ms X says the Council is at fault in how it considered her son’s application for home to school transport. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council considered its decision to refuse transport assistance. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to her and pay her £100, and to consider any application and/or appeal for transport from Ms X’s new address with regard to the correct tests. It has also agreed to review its Home to School Travel Assistance Policy.

Summary: Ms A says the Council is at fault in how it considered her daughter’s application for home to school transport. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council considered its decision to refuse transport assistance. To remedy the injustice caused, I recommend that the Council reconsider the application, apologise to her, and pay her £100. I also recommend it review its Home to School Travel Assistance Policy.

Summary: The Ombudsman exercised discretion to discontinue the investigation of Mrs W’s complaint about the appeal panel failing to properly consider her submissions when it decided her appeal against the school governors’ decision to refuse her son a place in Year 7 in September 2021. This is because Mrs W wants to withdraw it as her son is settling at a new school. She wishes to avoid putting the family through the stress of a second appeal, which is the likely remedy, had we investigated and found fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council was wrong to refuse free home to school transport. It is unlikely we would find fault in the process or decision.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s support for Ms Y’s children and about a delay in considering her complaint. The Council is at fault as it delayed in completing the stage 2 investigation into Ms Y’s complaint and wrongly refused to accept Mrs X’s request for a stage 3 review. The faults by the Council caused distress and uncertainty to Ms Y and caused uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by making payments to Mrs X and Ms Y to acknowledge the uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not providing the information he wants. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about where the Council decided it was safe for Ms X’s child to live. This matter is for a court to decide.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the content of the Council’s court report. We cannot lawfully investigate because it is part of court proceedings.

Summary: We upheld Miss X’s complaint about the way the Council handled her daughter’s education, health and care plan. The Council failed to secure the provision in the plan, and delayed carrying out reviews and issuing amendments to the plan. As a result, Miss X’s daughter did not receive all the provision she was entitled to. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and her daughter and make a payment to recognise the lost provision and the provision Miss X paid for.

Summary: We found fault by the Council. It gave misleading information, delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to respond to a request for a personal budget. The Council also failed to provide occupational and speech and language therapies for a term. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise and make payments.

Summary: We found fault by the Council. It gave misleading information, delayed in issuing a final Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to respond to a request for a personal budget. The Council also failed to provide occupational and speech and language therapies for a term. To remedy the injustice, the Council will apologise and make payments.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide his child, S, with school transport in 2019. We found the Council was not at fault for not providing transport for S for his after-school clubs. However, there was one incident when the Council should have provided transport but did not. The Council has already repaid Mr X the taxi cost and offered him £150 for his time and trouble. There is no further outstanding injustice to remedy.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council wrongly recorded and shared inaccurate information about him in an email and in Section 47 enquiries. The Council say the information was professional opinion and have offered to allow Mr B the choice of having his own statement added to the file. We find no fault in the Council’s recording or sharing of the information.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s involvement with his family. There is insufficient evidence of recent fault, a court is considering the welfare of Mr X’s children, and Mr X complains late about earlier events in 2019.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about a report used in court and the Council delay in responding to his complaint. This is because the issues Mr X raises cannot be separated from the matters decided in court.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about a report used in court. This is because the complaint issues Ms X raises are out of our jurisdiction as they are not separable from the matters decided in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s insistence she wear a face covering to a contact session. There is insufficient injustice to Miss X.

Summary: The Council failed to ensure Mr B’s son, K, received the Speech and Language Therapy provision set out in his Education, Health and Care plan. As a result, K missed out on therapy he needed, and Mr B was put to avoidable time and trouble pursuing his complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment, and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide her son who has special educational needs a suitable education for 27 months. Further, she says the Council delayed in providing her son an Education and Health Care Plan and did not keep in contact with her. The Council has accepted fault for each area of the complaint. The faults caused Mrs X and her son serious harm and distress and so we have recommended a number of remedies.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault by the preferred school on Mrs S’s complaint about the appeal panel failing to properly consider her submissions when it rejected her appeal against the decision to refuse her son a Year 7 place. The record of the decision-making process is unclear, proper reasons for the decision were not made, and nor was the decision properly explained to her. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council has failed to do what it agreed following a previous complaint to us. There is insufficient evidence of fault or injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mr and Mrs P complain about their dealings with the Council in the course of their adoption of their son, B. An independent investigation upheld 14 of their 15 complaints. The Council accepted the investigator’s findings and recommendations. I agree with the independent investigator’s findings and the action the Council has taken in response.

Summary: Mr and Mrs P complain about the Council’s decision to end Special Guardianship Order allowance payments for their grandchildren. There is no fault in the Council’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council providing an inaccurate report to another body. It was then used in Court proceedings and forms part of legal proceedings which we cannot investigate.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council failed to ensure her son, K, received support from suitably experienced and trained staff as set out in his Education Health and Care Plan. We find there was service failure in the delay in providing training from September 2020, but no other fault. The impact of the delay was limited because of other support K received. The Council has agreed a remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed finalising his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. He said it failed to properly handle his family’s data according to the General Data Protection Regulation. Mr X also complained about the Council’s delay in dealing with his complaint. The Council was at fault for the delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan completion and dealing with Mr X’s complaint. This has caused Mr X’s family significant distress, time and trouble and the child was disadvantaged by not having an up-to-date Plan for more than two years. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused to the child and Mr X’s family.

Summary: The Ombudsman found fault on Miss J’s complaint about the appeal panel’s failure to properly consider her appeal against the preferred school’s decision to refuse her son a Year 7 place. Information presented and considered by the panel was not sent to her before the hearing. The record of the decision-making process is unclear and there is no record of the members’ vote. The decision letter fails to explain the panel’s decision and was sent late. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of Mr X in a report for a court. The matters complained of are not separable from those about which Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use.

Summary: The Council wrongly refused to consider Mr D’s complaint through the children’s complaints procedure on the basis he made the complaint ‘late’. This has caused upset, time and trouble. The Council will now consider the complaint and apologise for failing to do so.

Summary: The Council wrongly refused to consider Mr D’s complaint through the children’s complaints procedure on the basis he made the complaint ‘late’. This has caused upset, time and trouble. The Council will now consider the complaint and apologise for failing to do so.

Summary: The Council wrongly refused to consider Mr D’s complaint through the children’s complaints procedure on the basis he made the complaint ‘late’. This has caused upset, time and trouble. The Council will now consider the complaint and apologise for failing to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has failed to deal with her complaint about support for her son. The complaints Mrs X has recently made to the Council do not specifically refer to matters within the past 12 months. There is thus insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation by us.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services’ actions. She does not have the consent of those most directly affected by the faults she alleges.

Summary: On the evidence currently available, we cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council is dealing with him in respect of his child’s care. The Court is currently considering the child’s care and we cannot investigate the same issues.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the information the Council gave her in 2009 about an allowance. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to safeguard a child. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no reason why the complainant could not have complained sooner.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the actions and opinions of the Council’s social workers regarding her family. A court is considering the case.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council delayed in issuing their child, Y, with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failed to deal appropriately with their complaints. The Council was at fault when it took too long to issue Y’s final EHC Plan and failed to respond to their complaints appropriately. The Council should apologise and issue a financial payment to remedy the injustice its faults caused.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how an admission appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a school place for her son. We have decided not to investigate the complaint further. This is because the Council has already agreed to offer Mrs X a fresh hearing and further investigation is unlikely to achieve any more for her.

Summary: Mr and Mrs Y complain about the Council’s handling of an Initial Child Protection Conference. The Council has accepted it was at fault and taken certain action to remedy some of the injustice Mr and Mrs Y experienced. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for failing to fully assess the distress, uncertainty and confusion caused to Mr and Mrs Y. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs Y, make a payment to them and make several service improvements.

Summary: Mr Y complains the Council incorrectly decided that his sister, B, was living with him under a private family arrangement. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. The Council’s failure to accept a duty to accommodate B under section 20 the Children Act 1989 meant Mr Y missed out on the fostering allowance that he was eligible to receive while B lived with him. B missed out on the support that would have been available to her as a looked after child, which left her with uncertainty. To remedy the injustice caused to Mr Y and B, the Council has agreed to: apologise to them and make a payments to Mr Y for the fostering allowance he should have received and to B for the uncertainty.

Summary: Ms X complains that the Council has treated her daughter unfairly because of her race and disability. We have stopped investigating this complaint because it relates to matters which Ms X has been aware of for several years. This is outside the normal 12-month period for accepting complaints, and there are no good reasons to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with the complainant and her family. This is because the matters complained about are subject to court proceedings and therefore fall outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about access to foster children. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: A parent complained that the school admission appeal process in her son’s case was unfair. However, we do not have grounds to investigate this matter. This is because there is no sign that fault by the appeal panel caused the parent an injustice to warrant our further involvement.