Summary: Miss X complains that the Council failed to provide special educational provision for her daughter in line with her Education, Health and Care plan. She also complains that the Council ignored her request for a personal budget and failed to respond to her complaint. Miss X says her daughter lost out on provision she was entitled to receive. She says the Council’s failures have caused her unnecessary distress, anxiety and stress, and meant she spent time and trouble trying to resolve the problems. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault. The fault caused Miss X injustice. The Council will apologise to Miss X and make a payment to reflect the injustice. The Council will also make an improvement to its service.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed amending her son, C’s, Education Health and Care plan and failed to provide alternative education after C could not attend school. The Council accepted it was responsible for faults in the EHC review process and delays in providing C with a suitable education. The Council provided a suitable remedy for C’s missed education and the impact on Miss X. However, it failed to provide a remedy for C’s distress. It agreed to apologise to C and fund a suitable gift to recognise the impact on him.

Summary: Mr X and Ms Y complained the Council failed to make ‘reasonable endeavours’ to provide for their son, Z’s, special educational needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council failed to properly consider and make ‘reasonable endeavours’ to arrange Z’s special education when there was an alternative provider available. It also failed to review Z’s personal budget to meet increased costs and to meet other costs Mr X and Ms Y incurred due to fault for which it was responsible. It agreed to apologise, pay these costs and review similar cases.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly consider her school transport appeal. She says that this caused difficulty and inconvenience. We find no fault by the Council in the way it considered the appeal.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the handling of her daughter's school admission appeal. We do not find there was unreasonable delay in holding the appeal. But we find that the appeal panel was at fault in failing to consider the appeal properly and give adequate reasons for its decision. The Council has agreed to offer a fresh hearing.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council wrongly refused his request for home to school transport for his child. I have ended our investigation into this this complaint. This is because the Council has since changed its decision and is now providing Y with home to school transport.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to award the complainant’s child social or medical priority for their preferred school. This is because the Council has now agreed to the complainant’s request and so we could not achieve anything more.

Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council acted inappropriately by telling her former foster children’s birth family that it was concerned she may attend their mother’s funeral despite there being no grounds to reach this conclusion. The Ombudsman found no grounds to criticise the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s action concerning Mrs X’s grandchildren. The contact and residence of children has been and can only be decided by a court. Matters from 2019 or earlier are late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate them now.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her requests for more support for her child since 2018 and her complaints about this. The Council has already addressed and remedied faults identified by considering Mrs X’s complaints through all three stages of the statutory complaint process twice. The Council was at fault for not considering the injustice caused by delay in it progressing both complaints in line with the statutory timescales. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and her child for the impact of the delays. The Council will also remind all relevant staff of the timescales in the statutory complaint process and to consider the impact of any delay.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council, the police and his child’s school failed to properly deal with his safeguarding concerns about his child’s welfare. Mr X says the matter has caused him significant distress, financial loss and his child continues to be at risk of significant harm. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s safeguarding concerns.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement with the complainant and her family in 2014. This is because the events happened too long ago and I see no reason why the complaint could not have been raised sooner.

Summary: Ms C says the Council was at fault for taking a year and a half to process her son, X’s, application for an Education, Health and Care Plan and for other faults made during the EHCP process. She says this has caused injustice to X because he missed out on education. The Council was not at fault for delays in processing Ms C’s application. It was, though, at fault for a failure to provide information that Ms C had requested. It should take steps to improve its information management systems.

Summary: Miss X complained about how the Council prepared and issued Z’s Education, Health and Care plan. The Council delayed in issuing the plan and failed to put alternative provision in place when it was aware Z was out of education. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration and meant Y was without suitable education for seven months. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and makes service improvements to prevent the fault occurring again.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the decision of an Independent Appeal Panel to refuse her son a place at her chosen school. There was no fault in the way this decision was made.

Summary: We stopped investigating Miss X’s complaint about her son’s education because it is reasonable for the Council to conclude its independent investigation of her complaint.

Summary: We found fault by the Council, CCG and Private Hospital with regards to how they planned aftercare for a young person following her discharge from hospital after a period of detention under the Mental Health Act 1983. These organisations have agreed to apologise and the Private Hospital will also pay the complainant a financial remedy. We found no fault by the Private Hospital in terms of the consideration it gave to the young person’s diagnosis during her admission.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly consider his complaints about historic abuse while in care. We found there was fault. The Council agreed to consider the complaint Mr X raised in 2020 through the statutory children’s complaints process and make a payment to Mr X of £200 to recognise his time and trouble in bringing the complaint.

Summary: The complainant, a foster carer, complained that the Council made numerous mistakes when paying her fostering allowances and expenses. The Council has accepted fault and agreed to the recommended way to remedy the injustice caused to the complainant. It is also looking to improve its payment system for all foster carers. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council not recording conversations as he has not been caused any personal injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council imposing restrictions on Mr X visiting his partner’s home. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint made against Children’s Services. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part causing unremedied injustice to the complainant.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council included inaccurate information in reports it produced for the courts. This is because we cannot investigate matters that have been subject to court proceedings. Furthermore, the complaint is made late.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council’s children’s services dealt with the complainants family after a safeguarding referral was received. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no reason why the complaint could not have been brought to the attention of the Ombudsman sooner.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the outcome of her post-16 home to school appeal for her son, F. The panel failed to properly consider the evidence Mrs X provided and failed to give her the opportunity to make verbal representations which is not in line with statutory guidance. The Council agreed to offer Mrs X a fresh appeal and review its post-16 home to school transport policy.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Education Health and Care Plan process faults. The Tribunal is considering the case. We cannot consider the same issues. The injustice from any separable issues cannot be established until the Tribunal’s conclusion.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council carried out an education health and care needs assessment. This is because the complainant has used her right of appeal to a tribunal, which places the matter outside of our jurisdiction. Other matters raised happened too long ago and I see no reason to exercise discretion and investigate them now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a request for a special educational needs assessment. This is because the decisions the Council has made carry the right of appeal to a tribunal, and the delay is not so significant as to warrant our intervention.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the support and actions of the Council in relation to a child in need who lived with them. She also complained that reports the Council wrote for the courts were flawed and contained false allegations about her. We found the Council was at fault for not considering the complaint through the statutory children’s complaints process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide therapist support. This is because the Council has taken action to remedy the complaint and there is nothing further we could achieve.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because it would be reasonable for Mrs X to proceed with a stage 3 review of her complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s Education Health and Care Plan failures since June 2020. Mr X has appealed to the Tribunal.

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: Mr X complained about the Council’s involvement with him and his three children, all of whom are subject to a child protection plan. He said the Council has treated him unfairly and this has caused him stress and upset. There was fault in the Council’s actions when it failed to properly assess Mr D’s friend Ms W prior to approving her as a carer for Mr D’s children. This caused stress and inconvenience to Mr X. The Council has carried out a review of its guidance to ensure this does not happen again in future. This is a suitable remedy to address any injustice Mr X experienced.

Summary: I did not find fault with the Council for the way it considered Mr C’s complaint through the statutory complaint process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove Miss X from its register of foster cares. There is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its decision to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s Children’s Social Care involvement with Miss X. That is because her substantive complaint relates to actions of the Police which are outside of our jurisdiction. Other parts of her complaint are either premature, late or have been considered through the children’s statutory complaints procedure, therefore further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers. These matters are not separable from matters that were heard in court or could have been brought before the court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to Mr X and his son during child protection proceedings. This is because it is a late complaint and there are no good reasons for us to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council safeguarded the complainants daughter. This is because most of the complaint is made late, and the complainant does not have the consent to complain on behalf of her daughter about recent events.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers. The complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about what happened when Mrs X adopted her children in 2016 and 2017. There is no good reason to exercise discretion to do so now.

Summary: The Council failed to complete an education, health and care needs assessment for Ms B’s daughter started in 2017 and failed to issue a final education, health and care plan. It also failed to tell Ms B that her daughter had an SEN caseworker. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to make a payment to Ms B. The Ombudsman does not uphold Ms B’s complaint that the Council failed to make adjustments to enable her daughter to attend a sensory food group at her school.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to offer her son Y, a suitable education for over two years. She also complained the Council provided a tutor who behaved inappropriately. She said this caused her stress and negatively impacted Y’s development. The Council was at fault when it delayed holding an annual review and issuing a finalised EHC Plan for Y. There is no evidence this caused an injustice to Y and the Council has already remedied this fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide free school travel for the complainant’s daughter. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault in the way the Council’s decision was reached.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to inform Mr X’s partner’s ex-partner about an historic conviction. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to issue a letter. Investigation is not warranted by the claimed injustice to Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s treatment of him in supervising his daughter in the care of his grandchild. This would be unlikely to find further fault or achieve a greater remedy or different outcome.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions as part of its child protection enquiries. Mrs X complained a social worker told her husband to leave the house without explaining this course of action was voluntary. She also complained the social worker included inaccurate information in their assessment and acted in an intimidating way towards her. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused avoidable distress to her and her husband. We found some fault by the Council and the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s children services team’s involvement in a decision about her child’s school place. It is unlikely we would find fault which caused the alleged injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complained about multiple failings by the Council regarding her disabled daughter’s special educational needs provision. We have not found fault with the Council’s actions. We are unable to investigate some of this complaint because they relate to issues that were the subject of an appeal to the Tribunal.

Summary: The Ombudsman has already decided that the Council should have held an annual review of the complainant’s Education, Health and Care Plan in October 2018. This complaint considers the complainant’s concern that, because of this failure, he has lost out on his academic choices and on the required special educational needs provision specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan. We uphold some aspects of the complaint. The Council has agreed the recommended remedy and therefore we are closing the complaint.

Summary: We upheld Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure special educational needs provision for his daughter, Y. The Council failed to obtain a risk assessment from Y’s school or show how it worked with Mr X and the school to consider different ways of delivering the provision. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mr X and Y for the uncertainty it caused about what further provision might have been available.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school’s response to Mr X’s son’s needs. We cannot investigate the school’s actions, and any complaint about the Council’s actions is late, with no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to provide adequate support after she agreed to care for the children of a deceased relative. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. It has agreed financial remedies and a policy review.

Summary: Ms X complains about poor services to her disabled child in the form of delayed assessment and loss of education. She says the Council took too long to investigate her complaint and that the remedy it has offered is inadequate. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. It has agreed to an enhanced financial remedy and a detailed apology.

Summary: We found fault with the Council for delays in the statutory complaint process when it investigated Mrs B’s complaint. This caused an injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice it caused.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions before during and after he began caring for his grandchildren. He says the Council’s remedy for these fault is inadequate. The Council is at fault and has caused injustice. The Council has agreed financial remedies and a fresh review of the Council’s decisions in the period before the children moved to stay with Mr X.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a children services inaccurate assessment report. We cannot achieve the outcome she seeks, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delays in the statutory children’s complaint process. It is unlikely we could achieve more than the Council has offered.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the way the Council’s children services assisted the complainant with securing contact with his children. This is because these matters are currently considered by court. We cannot investigate other matters raised by the complainant as they are too closely linked to the court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about the child protection actions of social workers between 2013 and 2016. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about what happened to Mr X when he was an infant school pupil. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a report the Council completed for the Court. This is because, by law, the content and production of such reports falls outside our jurisdiction.