Summary: Mr F is concerned for the welfare of his son, B. His son is looked after by the Council. Mr F feels side-lined by the Council. The Council has responded appropriately to Mr F’s complaints.

Summary: Mrs K complained the Council failed to ensure her son received an education and his special educational needs provision during the summer term 2021. We found the Council at fault for failing to ensure her son received a suitable education and School Y had funding to provide his education. It also failed to provide some of her son’s SEN provision. The Council proposed remedies to acknowledge the injustice this caused the family. It also agreed to make payment for the distress Mrs K experienced and the costs she had to provide special educational needs provision for her son.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council delayed providing information to the SEND Tribunal dealing with his appeal. We cannot lawfully investigate actions relating to Mr X’s appeal to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Ms X and her daughter. This is because Ms X’s contact with her daughter is subject to a court order and she would need to go to court to have this changed or enforced.

Summary: Mrs R complains the Council wrongly ended her daughter’s (Child B) personal budget which was used to support her special educational needs. She also complains the Council has delayed in amending Child B’s Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP). We have identified numerous and serious failings by the Council which amount to poor administrative practice in some areas. The Council repeatedly made flawed decisions about Child B’s personal budget based on no clear rationale or criteria. It also failed to provide Mrs R her legal right to challenge the decisions through a clear review process. The Council also failed to adhere to statutory guidance relating to the timeframe for amending an EHCP. Mrs R has suffered serious loss, harm and distress by reason of the Council’s failings. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the serious injustice identified.

Summary: The Council has accepted that it was at fault in the way it managed the complainant’s son’s special educational needs, resulting in him being without suitable education for a prolonged period. We have recommended a way to remedy this injustice and for the avoidable distress caused to his family. The Council has accepted the recommendations and therefore we are closing the complaint.

Summary: Ms B and Mr C complained the Council failed to adequately assess and then meet their son’s special educational needs and as a result he missed out on appropriate education in a school for almost two years. There was fault which caused injustice. We make recommendations at the end of this statement for how the Council can remedy this injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the assessment of her child’s special educational needs carried out by an educational psychologist. This matter is not separable from the content of the child’s Education Health and Care Plan, where Miss X would have a right of appeal to a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal should the Council amend the Plan.

Summary: We 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.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to allow Miss B the opportunity to appeal about the content of an assessment. This is because investigation would not achieve the outcome she is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a referral received by children’s services. This is because there is insufficient injustice to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s adoption application. There is insufficient evidence of injustice we could consider, and an investigation is unlikely to reach a significantly different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of a social worker in removing Mrs X’s children and lying in court. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The matters complained of are not separable from those that were or could reasonably have been subject to the court process.

Summary: The complainant alleged that the Council misled her into thinking it would name her preferred school placement when issuing her daughter’s final amended Education, Health and Care Plan, that it delayed in implementing a Tribunal Order and delayed in holding an annual review in 2020. We find fault in some aspects of this complaint. The Council has accepted the recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused. We are therefore closing the complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council has failed to provide appropriate free transport to enable her adult son Mr Y to attend the college named in his Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault. It failed to consider whether transport was necessary and delayed considering its duties under the Care Act. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr Y and make a payment. It has also agreed to review its policy and procedure

Summary: there was fault in the Council’s handling of the complainant’s appeal against its decision to refuse free home to school transport. This caused her injustice. The Council will now arrange a fresh appeal with a different panel so that her appeal may be heard properly.

Summary: Mr D complained about the Council’s handling of his three children’s Education, Health and Care plans. The Council agreed it caused delays in reviewing and amending their plans, and it failed to provide some special educational needs provision. This was fault. It will apologise to Mr D and his children, and make payment to acknowledge the distress, time and trouble, and loss of provision they experienced.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in meeting Mrs X’s child special educational needs. Her appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal, though conceded by the Council, means she has had access to an alternative remedy and prevents us from considering related matters. There was no fault in the remainder of the Council’s actions.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the suitability of a school for Miss X’s child. This matter is not separable from matters in respect of which she had a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The earlier part of the period covered by the complaint is also late, and there would be no good reason to exercise discretion to consider that period even if there had been no right of appeal it would have been reasonable to use. Investigating how the Council handled a complaint or communicated about a matter we are not investigating would not lead to any worthwhile outcome.

Summary: The Council was at fault in the failure to review contact restrictions. This caused a family including members with disabilities, avoidable distress. The Council agreed to take action described in this statement including offering an advocate to Mr and Mrs X’s daughter. This is appropriate to remedy the injustice.

Summary: Mrs G complains the Council did not take her grandchildren into care when they came to live with her in December 2020. The Council says it was a private family arrangement. There does not appear to be any fault in the Council’s decision.

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

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide information requested by the complainant. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider the matters raised.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the failure to conduct a parent carer’s needs assessment. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. There is nothing that we could usefully add to the Council’s response which upholds and remedies the complaint.

Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council handled his son’s Education, Health and Care plan. Mr X said his son missed out on education and social/emotional opportunities. He said it caused unnecessary distress, inconvenience, and cost him time and trouble. We cannot investigate this complaint because it is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Ms B complained about the Council’s refusal to provide free school travel for her child to attend school which is some distance from their house. We have not found fault with the Council.

Summary: A parent complained about the way the school admission appeal panel dealt with her appeal for a place for her son at her preferred secondary school. But we will not investigate the complaint because the Council has now agreed to hold a fresh appeal.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the suitability the care provided to Mr X’s daughter whilst she was a looked after child. This is because the substantive matter was dealt with at court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council breaching a court order and failing to check if a tenant in a property he owns can care properly for her children. Mr X has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use to deal with any loss of rental income, and he is not a suitable representative for the children.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the information the Council has recorded about Ms X. Investigation would not achieve the outcome Ms X is seeking, and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider whether data is inaccurate. She also has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use if she believes the Council has defamed her.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council revealing information in error. The matter complained of is not separable from court proceedings, and only a court could decide a dispute over legal costs.

Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter, Y’s, Education Health and Care plan, and its failure to ensure Y received a suitable education. The Council was at fault for a significant delay in finalising Y’s plan, a delay in consulting the family’s preferred school, and a failure to check whether the education Y was receiving at home whilst a suitable school was identified was suitable. I have recommended it pay Mrs X £1,800 to remedy the costs of educating Y at home for a longer period due to the delays and to recognise the educational opportunities Y missed out on. It should make changes to its processes to prevent recurrence of the faults.

Summary: there was fault by Hampshire County Council in the form of delay in completing an assessment of Ms B’s child’s special educational needs and in making adequate educational and special educational needs provision for a prolonged period. This caused injustice to Ms B and her daughter. The Council will take the action recommended to remedy this injustice.

Summary: the Council delayed issuing Mrs B’s son’s education, health and care plan, initially said it would not make any amendments, provided an incorrect date for the next review of the plan and failed to properly communicate with her. Those failures led to a delay in additional provision for Mrs B’s son and led to him accessing less education, as well as causing Mrs B significant distress. An apology, procedural changes and payment to Mrs B is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Ms B complains the Council delayed issuing an EHCP for her child and failed to provide provision when they were out of school. Ms B says this meant Child B was without education for an extended amount of time. The Ombudsman intends to find fault with the Council for delaying Ms B’s request for an EHCP assessment, and for failing to provide Child B with suitable access to education and provision. The Ombudsman also intends to find fault with the Council for its record keeping. The Ombudsman recommends financial remedies and service improvements.

Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to give Mr B the opportunity to verbally present his views to the panel considering his travel assistance application for his grandson. The Council has agreed to reconvene the panel and consider the case again, with Mr B present if he wishes.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the contents of Y’s Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). This is because it would be reasonable for Miss X to appeal against the contents of the EHCP to the SEND Tribunal.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not provided suitable support and adjustments for her and her family’s needs. This has meant they have not received the right support and have not been able to complain. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to consider Ms X’s complaints under the statutory complaints process. The Ombudsman also finds fault with the Council for failing to suitably consider requests for reasonable adjustments and failing to have due regard to its duty under the Equality Act 2010. The Council has agreed to make a financial payment and service remedies.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to properly consider her complaint that she was being charged for a government funded ‘free’ nursery place. We found there was some delay in the investigation. We also found the Council should have sought to obtain a refund of the inappropriate charges that the nursery made to Mrs X.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to protect him from abuse and neglect as a child whilst he was in the Council’s care. The Council refused to investigate his complaint, saying the issues were out of time. The Council was at fault as it should have investigated his complaint. Since bringing the complaint to us, the Council has reviewed its decision and decided to open an historic child protection investigation into his complaint. This is an appropriate action. The Council should also make service improvements to help prevent a reoccurrence of the identified fault.

Summary: Mr Y complains the Council failed to consider a complaint about historic issues he experienced whilst he was a child in care. We find the Council did not properly consider the circumstances around Mr Y’s complaint before deciding it was too old to investigate. The Council will consider Mr Y’s complaint through the statutory children's complaints procedure, pay £100 to Mr Y for his time and trouble and issue a reminder to all staff who handle children’s service complaints.

Summary: We uphold Ms X’s complaint, the Council failed to consider her complaint within its children statutory complaints’ procedure. The Council has agreed to complete the stage two without further delay.

Summary: The Council is at fault for delaying its consideration of this complaint under the children’s statutory complaints procedure. However, there is no evidence of fault in how it considered the points raised in the complaint, and we therefore could not add to the investigation already carried out by the Council. The Council has agreed to make a payment to the complainant to reflect the delay in dealing with the complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s children’s services involvement in the complainants family. This is because most of the complaint is about matters that have been subject to court proceedings, which places it outside of our jurisdiction. Complaints about inaccurate information and the Council’s refusal to amend records are best dealt with by the Information Commissioner. There is no evidence of fault with how the Council has responded to other issues raised by the complainant.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about internal school matters, contact restrictions placed on her parent and alleged contact made by social workers following a family bereavement. We cannot investigate school matters, Miss X has not made specific complaints relating to restrictions placed on her and we are unlikely to find fault regarding communication around the time of the bereavement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about what a social wrote in a court report and how the Council submitted it. These matters are not separable from a court process, and we have no authority to consider them.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council’s social workers have lied in court and provided false evidence. We cannot lawfully investigate actions which are part of a court case.

Summary: We have found no fault with how the Council reached its decision to reject Mrs X’s application for school transport allowance for her son. The decision was made in line with national and local policy.