Summary: The Council failed to properly monitor Ms X’s son’s, Z’s, alternative education package while he was educated outside of school. This caused frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for a financial remedy and service improvements. The Council was not at fault for the length of time it took to find Z a new school place.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to review her son’s Education, Health and Care plan for three years, failed to put provision in place and failed to consult schools when requested. There was some delay and administrative fault by the Council but this did not affect Ms X’s son’s education. Ms X and the Council disagreed about the type of education to be provided which was a matter for the SEND Tribunal to resolve. An apology and modest remedy payment were recommended but declined by Ms X.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to put in place education, health and care provision for Y, as set out in his plan. She also complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for Y was he was not attending school. This meant Y missed out on educational provision. We found fault with the Council. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice to Y.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing her daughter’s final Education Health Care Plan following an annual review. Ms X has appealed to Tribunal. We have discontinued our investigation. It is not possible to determine the level of injustice caused by the Council’s alleged fault until the Tribunal has reached a decision

Summary: The Council failed to provide the IT equipment and software listed in Ms X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This has negatively affected her son’s education. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide the items needed and make a symbolic financial payment to Ms X. It has also agreed to put in place appropriate training for staff to prevent this happening in future.

Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal concerning a school place for her son. But we will not investigate this matter as there is not enough evidence of fault by the panel.

Summary: Dorset Council had already accepted it was at fault when it wrongly provided the complainant’s partner with confidential information about her. The Council will now formally apologise and increase the payment it offered her to acknowledge the impact of this.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to properly advise him about the care options or financial support available when it placed his nephew with him. Mr X complained he did not receive the correct allowances or fostering fees which caused him financial difficulties. The Council’s failure to provide Mr X with sufficient information to enable him to make an informed decision regarding the SGO and the support he would receive amounts to fault. This fault has caused Mr X a significant injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs C’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide adequate support for her adopted son. This is because the Council has agreed to carry out an investigation under the statutory complaints procedure for children’s services.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council is failing to protect his children and has refused to deal with his complaint. The Council has agreed it will accept Mr X’s complaint and reply to it. Mr X will need to complain to it again following the conclusion of the current family court case.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to put her daughter up for adoption. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about court action or what happened in court. The Council has accepted there were delays in arranging to provide Miss X with updates about her child following adoption. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X £300 to acknowledge the distress this caused her.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker because they relate to matters considered in private law proceedings.

Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council delayed in issuing his granddaughter’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and has failed to provide suitable education. The Council has accepted fault and has accepted the recommended ways to remedy the resulting injustice. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council was at fault in relation to Ms B’s complaints about the provision of handwriting support and that its handling of part of Ms B’s complaint to the Council was avoidably delayed. It will apologise to Ms B.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed making changes to her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) causing distress, putting her to time and trouble and resulting in her son missing the start of school. We found the Council at fault in its review of Y’s EHCP. We recommended it provided Mrs X with an apology, payment for distress, payment for time and trouble and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X's complaint about the Council’s special education needs team’s actions. We will not get involved with the Tribunal’s actions and it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s decision to consult the child’s mother.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to take action following safeguarding referrals.

Summary: Ms X complained to the Council about disability discrimination in dealing with her over an assessment of her daughter’s social care needs. She complained to the Ombudsman that the Council refused to progress her complaint to the second stage of the complaints process but instead told her to make a legal claim. The Council has now decided to investigate the complaint at stage 2 of the children’s social care complaints procedure. We have therefore decided to stop investigating the complaint as it would not achieve any more for Ms X at this stage. Once she has completed the complaints process she may make another complaint to the Ombudsman if she is not happy with the outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions regarding Miss X and her child. This is because parts of the complaint are late and there are good reasons to consider them now. Other parts of the complaint relate to matters which were subject to court action.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to issue its stage two response and make a payment to the complainant for the time and trouble its delay has caused.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to secure the provision in her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan since April 2020. Mrs B says her daughter lost provision and this affected her daughter’s health. The Council was at fault for failing to secure provision and this caused Mrs B and her daughter injustice. The Council will make a financial payment to Mrs B to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Mrs Y complained the Council failed to complete the review of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescale, failed to arrange special educational provision and delayed a personal budget payment. We have found fault by the Council in failing to meet the statutory timescale for the review, and delay with the personal budget payment. The Council has agreed to remedy these faults by apologising, making a payment to reflect Mrs Y’s time and trouble and a service improvement.

Summary: Mrs J complains the Council delayed issuing a final EHC Plan for her grandson and has failed to provide him with a full-time education or with a personal budget for education out of school. We have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs J and review its procedures.

Summary: Mrs K complains about a lack of suitable education being provided to her son (Child X) who has special educational needs. Mrs K also complains the Council failed to identify a suitable school placement for Child X and has not updated his Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP). We found the Council used reasonable endeavours to find an alternative school placement for Child X. However, for some of the period Child X was out of school, the Council failed to provide him with suitable education, as required by law. For other periods, we have no jurisdiction to investigate because Mrs K could have reasonably appealed the issue of Child X’s school placement to a Tribunal. We do consider both Mrs K and Child X have suffered an injustice by reason of the Council’s failings and the Council has agreed to remedy this.

Summary: There was delay in an EHC needs assessment which delayed the issue of a final EHC plan. This in turn delayed when a child could receive the special educational provision they required. The Council will apologise and make a financial payment to acknowledge the impact of the delay.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed finalising her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan causing distress and financial loss. We found the Council at fault. We recommended the Council provide Miss X with an apology and payment for distress, and act to prevent recurrence.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal process. The matters complained of are not separable from the conduct of the process.

Summary: Mr W complains about the way the Council managed a child protection matter relating to his two children. Primarily, Mr W says his views were not taken seriously and that he was not kept properly informed about the Council’s involvement with him and his family. He also says the Council’s lead social worker was unsupportive of him and, at times, unprofessional. We have not identified any fault by the Council with respect to its involvement with Mr W’s family. Further, we also have no jurisdiction to investigate some of the issues raised by Mr W. The complaint is not upheld.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to arrange suitable contact with her children or update her on their progress while they lived with foster carers. The Council was at fault for failing to send Ms X some of the records of her contact sessions with the children. The missed contact records caused Ms X undue distress. We recommend the Council apologise and send her the records. The Council was also at fault for failing to properly facilitate arrangements for a family holiday. It had already taken appropriate steps to remedy that fault. The Council was not at fault in the other matters Ms X complained about.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about child protection action in 2018. The matters complained of are not separable from those that those that were subject to court action. The complaint is also late, and there would be no good reason to exercise discretion to investigate it even if there had been no court action.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with alternative educational provision while she was out of school and delayed the Education, Health and Care plan procedure. The Council accepts it failed to provide educational provision and offered an apology and a payment toward childcare costs. We find the Council acted with fault and the remedy offered did not reflect the injustice caused. The Council has agreed to our further recommendations to reflect the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Mr C complained that the Council took too long to prepare an education, health and care plan for his son, X. The Council has accepted it was at fault. The fault caused Mr C injustice in the form of distress and frustration. However, it did not adversely affect X’s education. As the Council is already working with the Department for Education to improve its special educational needs systems, we have made no recommendations for systems improvements. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay Mr C a sum in recognition of the distress the family has been caused.

Summary: Mr E complained the Council failed to consult him when it assessed if his son should have an Education, Health and Care Plan and took too long to correct statements in that plan which were inaccurate or distressing to him. He also complained it had not done enough to monitor education his son has received at home, being provided by the child’s mother. We upheld the first part of the complaint but considered the Council had provided a satisfactory remedy for any injustice caused to Mr E.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to properly consider her medical conditions and disabilities before it decided not to award her child school transport assistance. The Council was at fault because the panel failed to follow the appeal process in line with statutory guidance. This has caused Miss X distress, uncertainty and frustration. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: the Council planned practical support to build G’s confidence and ensure her journey to a new school was safe and manageable for her. However, G went to a different school and the Council paid for taxis instead. The Council appears to have stopped paying for taxis without carrying out a review. Ms M wants the Council to provide long-term school transport, but the Council has not considered her request. The Council has agreed to carry out the review and consider Ms M’s request.

Summary: Mrs Y complains about the conduct of the Council’s presenting officer before a school admission appeal hearing. She complains the Council failed to respond to her complaint. We have upheld Mrs Y’s complaint that the Council has failed to respond to her complaint. This caused Mrs Y uncertainty. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs Y, make her a payment and put her complaint through its complaints process.

Summary: the Council is at fault for failing to involve Mr F in a children and family assessment. As a result, the assessment is one-sided and fails to represent his views. The Council has apologised, added Mr F’s comments to his children’s files, changed its practices and made a symbolic payment to acknowledge the distress caused. This is a suitable remedy.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son with appropriate social care support from March 2021, and failed to complete appropriate assessments of his needs. The Council was at fault as it failed to investigate Mrs X’s complaint under the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council will arrange and start a stage 2 investigation under these procedures within one month of this decision. It will also make a symbolic payment for the uncertainty and time and trouble this caused Mrs X.

Summary: Mr X is not satisfied with the Council’s investigation and response to his complaint about its children’s services department. He does not consider the Council properly addressed his complaint. The Ombudsman has discontinued his investigation. That is because there is not enough evidence of fault, and it is unlikely we could add to the Council’s investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about children services actions. This is because it is unlikely that we would find fault on the decision to suspend the statutory complaints’ procedure. We are unlikely to achieve more on her child protection conference complaint. We cannot investigate those parts of her complaint which are covered by Court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to concerns Mrs X raised about her ex-husband. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council considered the complaint and it was reasonable for Mrs X to have raised her concerns in Court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council has failed to assess the potential for significant harm to her children by having contact with their father and has refused to deal with her complaints. The Council has agreed to accept a complaint from Mrs X on conclusion of the family court case. It is for the court to decide if the Council needs to assess or provide a report on the current position.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s concerns about his children’s welfare. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about safeguarding. Miss X is not a suitable person to represent the children concerned in her complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council’s decision not to fund all four legs of her journeys to take her child to and from school. She also complains about the way the Council calculated the distance between home and school for Personal Transport Budgets (PTB). The Council was at fault because it did not offer free arranged school transport to Mrs X’s child before she chose to use a PTB. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse additional travel costs and make a payment to Mrs X for her time and trouble. The Council will also amend its PTB policy to clarify the voluntary nature of the scheme and highlight this to current PTB users.

Summary: There was no fault by the Council in a complaint that alleged the complainant’s son missed education due to a lack of risk assessments by the Council’s special needs transport service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the permanent exclusion from school of Miss X’s child. We cannot investigate the actions of a school. Miss X was offered a right of appeal to an independent review panel organised by the Council. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying consideration of this complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to arrange a stage three panel and increase the payment offered to the complainant for the time and trouble its delay has caused her.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the care the Council gave a looked after child between 2009 and 2014. This is because we could not carry out a fair and meaningful investigation so long after the events complained about.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in deciding about the care of a child. The matters complained of are not separable from matters decided by a court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what the Council included in a court bundle. This matter is not separable from court action.

Summary: There was fault by the Council in complaint handling for which it has already apologised. We do not uphold a complaint about the Council changing the EHC plan in a way not intended by the Tribunal’s order.

Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s decision on her son’s school transport, resulting in distress to her son and inconvenience to her. We find the Council at fault for not following its published process, but this did not affect the Council’s decision making. We recommend the Council apologise to Ms X for not following its published appeals process and make a payment to recognise the uncertainty caused. We also recommend the Council remind staff dealing with transport appeals of the importance of following its published policy.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about alleged breaches of the law by the Council in dealing with Mr X’s son’s special educational needs. Mr X has sought to judicially review the Council’s actions and there is thus an absolute bar against us investigating these matters.

Summary: Miss X complains about the Council’s failure to provide the special educational provisions set out in her son’s Education, Health, and Care plan. She also complains the Council failed to appropriately deal with the safeguarding concerns she raised. We find fault with some of the Council’s actions. We have made recommendations for the Council to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: The complainants, foster carers, complained that the Council failed to understand their concerns about Covid-19 when insisting that they send the foster children to school prior to the second lockdown in December 2020. The complainants also considered the Council raised unfounded allegations about them as part of its complaint investigation. We find fault in some aspects of the Council’s approach and the Council has agreed a way to remedy the injustice. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council intended to withdraw the accommodation it provided to her and her children under the Children Act. There was no fault in how the Council made its decision to withdraw the accommodation it provided to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Ms X’s grandchild being put up for adoption. This is because the decision was made by the courts and we cannot investigate what happened in court or decisions made by the courts.

Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with provision for her son and daughter’s special educational needs. We have found fault by the Council in the delay arranging an assessment for Mrs Y’s son, and in responding to her complaint, causing injustice. The Council has agreed to remedy this by apologising and making a payment to reflect Mrs Y’s upset, time and trouble.