Summary: Mrs B complains the Council has not provided support to her disabled children and about the way it dealt with her complaint. We have found fault that has caused injustice. The Council has agreed to make payments to Mrs B and her family and review its complaints handling.

Summary: There was no fault in how an independent appeal panel considered an appeal against the refusal of a school place. We have therefore completed our investigation.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an appeal to the Tribunal and other related matters. This is because the fact the complainant appealed places the matter outside our jurisdiction. We cannot consider complaints about schools.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to keep his daughter safe while she was known to its children’s services. We upheld the complaint noting an earlier investigation had found fault in its case management. In addition, we found fault in how the Council responded to findings resulting from that earlier investigation. As a result, Mr B suffered injustice mainly in the form of distress. The Council accepted these findings and agreed action to remedy this injustice, set out in detail at the end of this statement.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to consider her request for a Child in Need assessment and a Parent Carer Needs assessment. We find the Council is at fault for failing to deal with Ms X’s complaint through the statutory children’s complaints process. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to apologise to Ms X and investigate her complaint through the statutory complaints process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about social workers. There is not enough evidence of fault to warrant investigation, and we could not achieve the outcome Mr X is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a referral which raised concerns about a child’s education, and that it subsequently committed a data breach. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault I how it dealt with the referral and breaches of data protection regulations are matters better considered by the Information Commissioner's Office.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that a social worker lied in court and about an assessment compiled during legal proceedings. This is because we cannot investigate matters that have been subject to court proceedings. We will not investigate the conduct of a social worker in 2021, because this matter happened too long ago, and I see no reason why it could not have been raised sooner.

Summary: Mr C complained about the home to school travel arrangements made by the Council for his son to get to school. He said the Council had not considered the safety of the route between his home and bus stops his son must use for the journey. We upheld the complaint, finding several flaws in how the Council dealt with this matter; most significantly in denying Mr C a right of appeal. He therefore suffered a missed opportunity to appeal and was put to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council accepts these findings and has agreed action to remedy this injustice.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide her son, B, with suitable educational provision while he was unable to attend school. We find the Council at fault, which caused B to miss out on certain educational provision and Mrs X was caused stress and distress. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise to B and Mrs X, make them several payments and make a number of service improvements.

Summary: the Council delayed issuing a final education, health and care plan and failed to consider providing alternative education provision when Mr B’s daughter stopped attending school. As a result Mr B’s daughter missed out on education and special educational needs provision. An apology, payment to Mr B and review of the process to manage completion of education, health and care plans is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mr X complained about delays in the Council’s communication, especially in issuing a finalised Education and Health Care Plan and responding to his complaint. He says this caused him significant distress. The Council accepted fault and agreed to remedy the injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refuse to name Ms X’s preferred school in her child’s EHC plan. This is because it is reasonable for Ms X to use her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a school named on a child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has appealed to the Special Education Needs and Disability Tribunal, which places this complaint outside of our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the way the Council dealt with his applications for school places. This is because it is reasonable for Mr X to use his right of appeal to an Independent Appeal Panel.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about an unsuccessful appeal for a school place. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions in relation to child protection matters. The Council was at fault for not considering the allegations of abuse which were made against Mr X before it decided the next appropriate steps to take. The Council has already apologised to Mr X however, the Council has agreed it will also remind staff to properly consider allegations of abuse before it decides on what actions to take.

Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it decided what support to give to Mr X’s children after a court issued a Family Assistance Order. It followed its procedures and when the concerns about Mr X’s children were reduced, it ended its involvement. There was fault in the process the Council used in deciding to close the case, including how it communicated the closure to Mr X. There was no injustice to Mr X from the Council using the wrong process, and it has apologised for not updating him when the case was closed, so it has already remedied his injustice.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Miss X’s concerns about her child in care. Miss X has a right to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office about any refusal of the Council to disclose documents to her. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s other actions to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the complainant’s children’s social worker. This is because we cannot achieve the outcome the complainant is seeking.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not paying an outstanding sum. There is not enough injustice to warrant investigation, and Mr X could pursue a claim with the small claims court.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Miss X’s complaint. The substantive matters behind the complaint are not separable from matters that have been or could have been raised in court. Miss X also has a right to go to the Information Commissioner’s Office if she wishes to complain of a data breach by the Council, and it would be reasonable to use this right.

Summary: Miss D complained the Council failed to provide her son with the education and specialist provision in his Education, Health and Care plan. She also says the Council’s communication with her was poor and it failed to properly deal with her complaints. We find the Council was at fault for failing to provide Miss D’s son with education and specialist provision when he was not attending school. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to refer Miss X to the Local Authority Designated Officer after it received a safeguarding referral for Miss X. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X £300 for the avoidable distress its actions caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to issue a Blue Badge for the complainant’s daughter. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council handled the child protection process for her child, S, about delays in the statutory children’s complaints procedure and about the Council’s refusal to accept one element of the stage 3 panel’s findings. The Council was at fault for not actively engaging with Miss X’s domestic abuse support worker and for delays in the complaints process. It should apologise and pay Miss X a further £150, making a total payment of £250, to remedy the frustration and distress caused.

Summary: Miss B complained that the Council had refused to consider her late complaint about children’s services through the statutory complaints procedure. We found fault with the Council. The Council has agreed to start an investigation at stage two of the procedure and pay Miss B £150.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a safeguarding referral. The action the Council has agreed to take is sufficient to remedy any injustice caused and we would not achieve more by investigation.

Summary: We have upheld this complaint because the Council delayed consideration of a complaint at stage two of the children’s statutory complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to the complainant.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not ensure her son, Y, received provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained about poor communication and poor complaint handling. She says Y has missed out on provision as a result and she has been caused frustration and distress. The Council was at fault. There were gaps in speech and language therapy provision between October and November 2020 and September and November 2021. There was also poor communication. The Council will pay Mrs X £600 to be used for Y’s educational benefit in recognition of the lost provision, apologise to her for the poor communication and agree how it will communicate with her going forward.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her son Y had a phased transition; refused her request for a delayed school start; for her son (Y), failed to meet the deadline for Y’s Education Health and Care Plan review; for school transition, failed to ensure Y had a phased transition and interfered with school matters. Mrs X said this caused distress to her and her family and has created uncertainty about Y’s future education. We have not investigated Mrs X’s complaints where we cannot achieve a worthwhile outcome and where we do not have jurisdiction. about the Council refusing her request for a delayed school start, failing to ensure a phased transition or interfering with school matters. On the transition review, we do not find the Council at fault Amend FD to DD.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to meet statutory deadlines to finalise her daughter’s Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and communicated poorly. Mrs X said this caused considerable distress and uncertainty. We find fault and recommend the Council apologise, make a payment to Mrs X, and take action to prevent recurrence.

Summary: Mrs D complained the Council has failed to provide her daughter with the education and specialist provision in her Education, Health and Care plan since the conclusion of Tribunal proceedings. We find the Council was at fault for failing to provide Mrs D’s daughter with the education and specialist provision in her Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Miss B complains the Council failed to assess both her and her grandchildren when they came to stay with her. Miss B has had no support to help her care for her two young grandchildren, causing her financial distress and frustration. We find fault with the Council for failing to follow the relevant procedures and for not carrying out an assessment. The Council have proposed a way to remedy the complaint which we agree with.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council fixed the amount of Special Guardianship allowance she received for her two grandchildren, and did not include yearly or age related increases, which is against statutory guidance. The Council is currently remedying the matter with plans to implement a new policy. But there is wider injustice to others due to this fault, and the Council has agreed with our recommendations to provide Mrs X with an apology and to backdate payments to other Special Guardians similarly affected by this issue.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to the complainant’s concerns about the welfare of his son. This is because it is unlikely we would add anything significant to the investigation which has already been carried out.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the safety of a child in the Council’s care. There have been recent court proceedings regarding the child’s care status, and the matters complained of either have been or could have been raised during those court proceedings.

Summary: There was fault by the Council, because it did not take steps to secure alternative provision for a period of time when a child was not in education because of health reasons. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice this fault caused. The Council was also at fault for a small delay in issuing the child’s education, health and care plan, but this did not cause a significant injustice.

Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to make appropriate educational provision for her son. She also complained that the Council communicated poorly with her. Miss X said this meant her son missed out on educational provision he was entitled to. She said it also caused unnecessary distress, frustration, financial loss, and cost her time and trouble. We find the Council at fault for its poor communication with Miss X. This caused her injustice. The Council will make a payment to Miss X to remedy this. We do not find the Council at fault for educational provision.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide her child with the support in their Education, Health and Care Plan for three years. This meant they missed support and educational opportunities. The Ombudsman find fault with the Council for failing to provide the agreed support and for failing to consider the impact on Child Y and Mrs X. The Council has agreed to pay a financial remedy, immediate action plan and service improvements.

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

Summary: We cannot consider Mrs X’s complaint about an unsuccessful school admission appeal for her son. This is because the law prevents us from considering complaints about admission appeals for academy schools.

Summary: We did not uphold a complaint about delay in amending Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. There was fault in complaint handling – delay and a failure to give an adequate explanation about concerns about naming School A for which the Council will apologise.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a children’s safeguarding matter. This is because the matter is connected to matters decided in court. We have no remit to investigate.

Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to secure a place at school for his son. He also complained the Council failed to review his son’s education, health and care plan and secure the provision in the plan. Mr B says the Council’s failures led to C’s health deteriorating and left him isolated from his peers. We found fault with the Council. The Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to Mr B and C for the injustice caused by its faults.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about children services involvement in her children’s removal from her care. There are no good reasons why the late complaint rule should not apply.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to review a Special Guardianship Order for her grandchild, Y. This caused Mrs X distress as she considered a review may have led to Y having increased contact with her birth parents. The Council was at fault, but this did not lead to the injustice Mrs X has described. We have exercised discretion to investigate this complaint and it would have been reasonable to expect the Council to do the same. Mrs X has been caused frustration by the Council’s refusal to consider exercising discretion to investigate the complaint.