Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council failed to finalise their two children’s amended Education, Health and Care Plans within the statutory timescales after its annual reviews. They also said it caused delays in paying the agreed personal budgets and its complaint’s process was flawed. The Council apologised and accepted it was at fault for errors and delays in finalising the EHC Plans and paying the personal budgets. It also accepts it failed to respond to some communication. We found the Council’s apology was not enough. It agreed to make payment to Mr and Mrs B to acknowledge the distress and time and trouble they experienced. It also agreed make payment for their children’s lost special education needs provision.

Summary: Miss M complained the Council wrongly refused to provide free home to school transport for her son, C, because she did not put the second nearest school as a preference when applying for a school place. The Ombudsman has found fault in the way the Council considered its decision to refuse transport. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss M and offer her a fresh appeal with a different council officer.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s education welfare teams enquiries of her child’s education. There is not enough significant fault or injustice to justify an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s child protection actions and social worker’s court report. We cannot lawfully investigate because a court dealt with the case. The complaint about earlier events is also late and outside the permitted 12-month period.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services actions as the Courts are considering the events which led to the complaint.

Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to provide her son with support set out in, delayed the review and amendment of, his Education, Health and Care Plan, and failed to provide him with a suitable education. We have found fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising, making payments to acknowledge the impact on Z of the loss of education and reflect Ms Y’s upset and time and trouble.

Summary: There was fault in failing to ensure a young person with special educational needs, who could not attend school due to anxiety, received suitable education and a successful transition to post-16 learning. This caused distress and uncertainty about whether, but for the fault, the young person’s outcome may have been different. Recommendations for an apology and financial payment are made.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the communication and support provided to the family and the Council’s actions when it placed their son in temporary foster care. They also complained that their son overheard a discussion between professionals that he should not have. We found there was fault, but the Council’s apology and actions to prevent a recurrence of the fault that occurred were a suitable remedy to the complaint.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council starting a court process to prevent the investigation of its actions. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The start of court action means we cannot investigate.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning Ms X’s child. The matters complained of are not separable from decisions about where the child should live that have been taken by a court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker. Most of the matters complained of are not separable from matters that are subject to court action, and we cannot investigate them. The social worker’s lateness for meetings is separable, but there is not enough fault or injustice to warrant investigation, and investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome or achieve the outcome Miss X wants.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker relating to Mr X’s intention to take a child overseas more than 15 years ago. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The Council sought a care order, so the involvement of a court means we cannot investigate. Even if that were not so, the complaint is late and there would be no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to name a school in her son’s Education, Health and Care plan within legal timescales and delayed issuing the final plan. Mrs X said the delays denied her a right to appeal to the Tribunal, and caused her uncertainty, frustration, and stress. She also said it took time and trouble to resolve the problem, and had a significant impact on her and her family. We find the Council at fault, and this fault caused Mrs X and her son injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to reflect the injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not provided Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision for her son. The Council is not at fault.

Summary: Ms X complains about the Council’s decision to go to Initial Child Protection Conference and place her child on a child protection plan following the sharing of incorrect information. Ms X complains this led to the Council wrongly placing her child on a child protection plan and caused significant distress. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to suitably include Ms X in the ICPC process and for failing to suitably consider and address her concerns about incorrect information. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for not suitably considering the impact on Ms X and Child A. The Council has agreed to provide a financial remedy and service improvements.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s children’s social care assessment of his family. He said it included incorrect information and was discriminatory. The Council has already accepted the assessment inappropriately referenced religious texts and made assumptions about his faith. That was fault. That caused Mr X avoidable distress. The Council has made appropriate recommendations for social workers to ensure assessments are evidence based to prevent recurrence of this fault. It has also agreed to apologise to Mr X.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in removing the complainant’s daughter from her care and in recommending her adoption. This is because these matters have been decided in Court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about child protection action. This is because we cannot achieve what the complainant wants.

Summary: Mrs T complains about how the Council dealt with her application for home to school transport for her child. The Council failed to properly apply the relevant law when it originally refused to award Mrs T’s child school travel assistance. It also refused to backdate and reimburse the travel costs incurred by Mrs T from the date it made its initial error. This has caused Mrs T distress, frustration and time and trouble and financial loss. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: There was delay by the Council in putting in place alternative education when a child was unable to attend school due to ill-health or ‘otherwise’. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a financial payment and make service improvements.

Summary: Ms Y complained the Council failed to issue an amended Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) for her son, B, and failed to provide him with suitable education while it found a new placement over a two-year period. The Ombudsman has found fault by the Council causing Ms Y and B injustice. The fault denied Ms Y her appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal and B missed out on a suitable education. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms Y and B, make them several payments as well as certain service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to offer Ms X’s child a suitable education after his exclusion from a school. There is insufficient evident of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We do not have reason to investigate this complaint about a school admission appeal panel. This is because there is no sign of fault by the panel in question.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s involvement with her son, Mr Y’s, family. There was no fault in how the Council considered and incorporated Mr Y’s views in its assessment of his children’s needs or investigated his safeguarding concerns. The assessments were not biased against Mr Y.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council has failed to provide contact with her child who is in foster care and has failed to respond adequately to concerns about this child. She complains it has also failed to provide sufficient mental health support and to respond to her complaints adequately. The Council is not at fault. Some of Miss X’s complaints are out of our jurisdiction as they have been considered by a court.

Summary: Ms X complained about errors and delays in the Council’s investigation of her complaint about Children’s services under the Children’s Statutory Complaints procedure. The Council was at fault. It has agreed to begin a stage 2 investigation and pay Ms X £200 in recognition of the frustration caused by poor communication and delay.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council discriminated against the complainant in matters relating to the care of his children. This is because the children’s care has been considered in Court.

Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided to withhold a letter written by a school for a school admissions appeal hearing. This is because the School Admissions Appeal Code is clear that schools cannot support individual cases. In the absence of procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision to refuse the appeal.

Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided to withhold a letter written by a school for a school admissions appeal hearing. This is because the School Admissions Appeal Code is clear that schools cannot support individual cases. In the absence of procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision to refuse the appeal.

Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided to withhold a letter written by a school for a school admissions appeal hearing. This is because the School Admissions Appeal Code is clear that schools cannot support individual cases. In the absence of procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision to refuse the appeal.

Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided to withhold a letter written by a school for a school admissions appeal hearing. This is because the School Admissions Appeal Code is clear that schools cannot support individual cases. In the absence of procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision to refuse the appeal.

Summary: The Council was not at fault when it decided to withhold a letter written by a school for a school admissions appeal hearing. This is because the School Admissions Appeal Code is clear that schools cannot support individual cases. In the absence of procedural fault, we cannot question the merits of the panel’s decision to refuse the appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to assess Ms X’s child for an Education Health and Care Plan.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement with Mr B and Ms B’s family. This is because it is unlikely investigation by the Ombudsman would add anything significant to the investigation the Council has already carried out.

Summary: Mr B says the Council’s actions during a child protection investigation caused him distress. Mr B says the Council was biased, did not investigate properly, and produced an inaccurate assessment report. We found the Council followed the correct process to investigate the concerns. The Council agreed to amend the report to reflect Mr B’s views and correct any factual mistakes, but he did not receive it. These changes would not affect the outcome of the investigation and are not evidence of fault. The Council has now sent Mr B its amended report.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council wrongly shared personal information about her in court. That is because we cannot investigate what happened in court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council included in reports about Ms X’s family. These matters are not separable from matters that have been before a court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what a social worker wrote in an addendum to a report for a court. This matter is not separable from the court proceedings.

Summary: Ms X complained about fault and delay in the way the Council provided support for her child’s special educational needs and care needs. We cannot say that on the balance of probabilities her child missed out on education, but the fault did cause uncertainty and distress as to whether the outcome might have been different, which is in itself an injustice. Recommendations for an apology, financial payment and service improvements are made.

Summary: A parent complained about the way the school admission appeal panel dealt with his appeal for a place for his daughter at his preferred primary school. But we do not have grounds to investigate the complaint because there is not enough sign of fault by the panel.

Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council improperly referred her family for a safeguarding investigation following allegations against her partner. She says the allegations were unfounded and the way the Council went about the matter caused distress. The Ombudsman does not find fault in how the Council managed the referral.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s conduct and treatment of her in relation to her children. She says Council officers were at fault in their preparation of a welfare report of her children which was ordered by the Family Court. Miss X also complains the Council failed to provide evidence of domestic abuse which would have supported her application for legal aid. We found the Council failed to properly consider and respond to Miss X’s request for evidence of domestic abuse. This caused Miss X an injustice and so we have recommended a number of remedies. We cannot investigate the issue of the court ordered reports as we have no jurisdiction to do so as a result of legal proceedings.

Summary: Mr X complains the Council failed to properly investigate a safeguarding referral about a school. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because complaints about schools are outside of our jurisdiction.