Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative education for her children and delayed assessing their special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council reviewed its decision following a mediation agreement and how it failed to consider its duty to arrange suitable alternative education. It agreed to apologise to Mrs X and her children, pay them a financial remedy and review its policy and practice.

Summary: Mrs F complains the Council delayed issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for her daughter, J, causing a delay in starting secondary school and distress to Mrs F. The Council has accepted fault and apologised. It has now agreed to make a payment to Mrs F.

Summary: Mrs B complained about delays in the education, health and care plan process for her child, C. She also complained the Council failed to provide C with the provision in the plan and suitable education when they were not attending school. We found fault with the Council. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice to Mrs B and C.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council delayed dealing with Mr F’s Education, Health and Care plan after the annual review. She also complained the Council delayed responding to the complaint. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in finalising Mr F’s Education, Health and Care plan. It also delayed responding to the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaints about the accuracy of documents used in Court proceedings. We should not investigate complaint procedure delays, as it is not appropriate to recommend any remedy.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council failed to complete her daughter’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment as directed by the SEND Tribunal, and within the statutory timescales. As a result, Mrs D said she experienced distress and her daughter did not get the support she needed. We found the Council at fault for causing delays and for seeking an unnecessary assessment. It should apologise to Mrs D and make payment to acknowledge the injustice this caused.

Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in issuing a replacement school bus pass to Mr B's daughter. It has apologised, and has agreed to make a payment of £41.80 to recognise the amount Mr B paid for school transport during the period of delay.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide Mrs X’s son transport to and from school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services in relation to the care of the complainants child. This is because the matter has been subject to court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s child and family assessment. This is because we could not achieve the central outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning the care of a child. The matters complained about are not separable from matters that have been considered in court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services attempts to safeguard a child. It is unlikely we would find fault and we cannot achieve the outcome he seeks.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X’s husband not being allowed to return to the family home. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mrs X not being allowed to see her step grandchildren.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Mr X not being allowed to return to the family home. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about fault in the process of dealing with Mr B’s complaint about the actions of Children’s Services. This is because the complaint has already been upheld and the Ombudsman’s intervention is not warranted.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to give Mr X information about his child’s education. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the complaint. Court action would also prevent us from investigating matters that are not separable from that action.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council delayed in issuing their child, Z’s Education Health and Care plan. They also complained about flaws in how the Council considered what educational provision Z needed and what school he should go to. The Council was at fault for failing to consider if Z needed an educational psychology assessment following a review of his plan. This did not cause a significant personal injustice because Mr and Mrs X paid for a private assessment before they were aware of the Council’s error. In the other matters complained about, the Ombudsman is either prevented from investigating, or the Council was not at fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue an Education Health and Care plan. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the education provided to the complainant’s son. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The complaint is therefore outside our jurisdiction. We cannot consider complaints about what happens in schools.

Summary: Mr C complained the Council failed to identify and provide education for his son between November 2019 and February 2020. There is no evidence of fault by the Council. The remainder of the complaint relates to the actions of an academy school which falls outside the Council’s control and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed finalising her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care plan and did not ensure they received provision in line with the plan. She also complained about poor complaints handling. The Council was at fault. The delays and poor service have caused Mrs X frustration and distress and Y has missed out on provision. The Council has agreed to offer Mrs X a financial remedy for the injustice caused to herself and Y.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide advice and support when she cared for her brother, Z, for fifteen weeks because he was not able to stay at home. The Council was at fault for not clarifying the basis on which Z was staying with her, delay in making a referral to the council where Ms X lives and failing to provide appropriate support. It should apologise, make a payment to reflect the avoidable stress caused and make changes to its processes to prevent this happening again in the future.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed finalising her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care plan and did not ensure they received provision in line with the plan. She also complained about poor complaints handling. The Council was at fault. The delays and poor service have caused Mrs X frustration and distress and Y has missed out on provision. The Council has agreed to offer Mrs X a financial remedy for the injustice caused to herself and Y.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s historic complaint about sexual abuse she suffered in the early 1980’s when she was a child in the Council’s care. The complaint lies outside our jurisdiction because it is late and there are not good grounds to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to remove Miss X’s grandchild from her daughter’s care. The matters complained of are not separable from the decision of a court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about whether the Council’s children services team should have spoken directly with a child. The Courts are now considering the child’s care and we cannot investigate the same issues it is considering.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council reached its view about where Mr X’s children should live. This is because a court will decide the issue of residence. The matter being complained of is not separable from the court proceedings.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the complainant’s child seeing a counsellor without his permission. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The complaint is about what happened in a school, and we have no powers to consider such complaints.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to amend and issue a draft and final Education, Health and Care plan for her son, Z, in line with the statutory timescales following an annual review in January 2021. Ms X further complained the Council failed to provide Z with the provision in his plan for 15 months and an appropriate full-time education for 5 months. There was fault in the Council delaying amending and issuing a final plan, and in providing some of the specified provision. There was no fault in how the Council considered the appropriateness of Z’s education. The Council agreed to pay Z £650 to recognise the injustice caused to him by the missed provision.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to complete a reassessment of Mr X’s special educational needs. That is because Mr X currently has an appeal with the Tribunal about the provision specified in his Education Health and Care plan which places the matter outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to a children’s safeguarding referral. That is because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify our investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council is placing her grandchild for adoption without contact with her. We cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants and cannot investigate court decisions.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to manage her daughter’s EHCP and provide the support she was entitled to. We have found the Council was at fault because it took too long to issue an amended EHCP and as a result did not increase the personal budget when it should have done. These faults caused distress and uncertainty and loss of additional support. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. We have not found fault in other matters complained about. We were unable to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about her daughter’s educational placement because the SEND Tribunal had jurisdiction over this.

Summary: We upheld a complaint from Miss X on behalf of her son Mr Y about the Council’s handling of his special educational needs provision. The Council failed to secure some of the therapeutic support in Mr Y’s plan. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr Y, make a payment to recognise his lost provision, and review its systems for checking provision is in place.

Summary: Mr X complained about the outcome of his home to school transport appeal for his daughter. He said the panel did not properly consider all the information he provided when it denied his request for a taxi as school transport for his daughter. Mr X further complained the Council ignored his communication about the same matter. There was fault in the Council’s record keeping but this did not cause Mr X an injustice as it did not affect the outcome of the appeal.

Summary: Mr X complains an appeal panel failed to properly consider an appeal for a school place for his brother, Y. We have found School A at fault for failing to ensure the consideration of Y’s appeal was properly documented. School A has agreed to apologise to Y and arrange a fresh appeal hearing to remedy the injustice caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because we are satisfied with the actions the Council have taken and have proposed to take.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about school transport for Mrs X’s child. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to follow its own safeguarding procedures correctly when it became involved with her and her family. She also complained the Council failed to progress her complaint to Stage 2 after she asked it to. She said this caused her and her family emotional distress and led her to suffer financial loss. There was fault identified in the Council’s management of the safeguarding investigation. The Council has already taken actions to identify the fault but it has agreed to also provide Mrs X with a £800 financial award.

Summary: The Council was at fault in delaying consideration of Miss B’s complaint at Stage 2 of the statutory procedure for children’s services complaints. The Council has agreed to begin Stage 2 and to offer to make a payment to Miss B.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the contents of a child and family assessment. This is because the events happened too long ago, and I see no reason why the complaint could not have been raised sooner.

Summary: We will uphold Ms X’s complaint, as the Council delayed considering a complaint at stage two of its corporate complaints’ procedure. The Council has agreed to complete its stage two without further delay and make a payment for the delay so far.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children service’s actions, as it is unlikely we would find fault.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker relating to a child’s care. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters which have been decided in court.

Summary: We should not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s complaints procedure. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.