Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide provision as specified in her daughter, Y’s, EHCP. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault by the Council. The Council were at fault for failing to secure the provision as per Y’s EHCP and this caused an injustice to Y and Miss X. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed issuing her son’s Education, Health and Care plan. The Council acknowledges it was at fault for failing to finalise the plan in line with the statutory timescale. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused by the fault for the Council to consider.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to communicate its decision on her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan following an annual review. The Council has acknowledged it is at fault and it has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X and her child. The Council has also agreed to make service improvements.

Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council handled her son’s education, health and care (EHC) needs. Ms X said this caused confusion, frustration, and delay. We find the Council at fault for delay issuing a final EHC plan after a reassessment. This caused injustice. The has agreed to Council apologise and make a payment to reflect the injustice caused. We do not find the Council at fault for two parts of the complaint. We have not investigated two other parts of the complaint, because they are either premature or outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not ensure his son, Y, received occupational therapy outlined in Section F of his Education Health and Care (“EHC”) plan. Mr B says Y needed this support to help his development and that as a result educational targets could not be updated in his EHC plan. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for not ensuring Y received the required occupational therapy.

Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed to provide full-time suitable education to her son (Y), who for many months was on a part-time timetable at school and failed to ensure delivery of his special educational provisions (SEP). Miss X also complained about Y’s school exclusions and the way the Council handled her complaint. We found fault with the Council for its failure to provide full-time suitable education to Y from March 2022 till July 2022 and failure to ensure delivery of his SEP in September and October 2022. We did not find fault with the Council for its complaint-handling. We could not investigate school exclusions as these matters are outside our jurisdiction. The Council agreed to make symbolic payments to remedy injustice caused by its failings and review its part-time timetable monitoring.

Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not promptly respond to the complainant’s attempts to contact it, to discuss her daughter’s educational placement. This fault has caused uncertainty about the position she may now be in. The Council has agreed to write a formal letter of apology for this, and offer a financial remedy both to the complainant and her daughter to reflect the uncertainty its fault has caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council sharing information with external organisations without Ms X’s consent. Complaints about data protection are better dealt with by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

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

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to recognise her as a foster carer for Child Y, and failed to take legal action to protect Child Y. This meant she was forced to incur debt to keep Child Y in her care. The Ombudsman finds fault with the Council for failing to remedy the fault found in the stage three review panel, and the stage two investigation. The Council has agreed to backdate the foster care payments that should have been given to Ms X and repay her legal fees. The Council will also pay a financial remedy for the distress and time and trouble caused to Ms X.

Summary: Mr D complained about historic physical and sexual abuse when he was a child in care and about the way the Council dealt with his complaint. There was fault in complaint handling which has caused injustice to Mr D. The Council has agreed to reconsider whether to exercise discretion to investigate Mr D’s complaint at stage two of the statutory children’s complaint procedure and write to him with the outcome setting out its reasons.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to follow the Children Act complaints’ procedure. It has now agreed to do so.

Summary: I uphold this complaint that the Council delayed its response under the statutory process for complaints about children’s services. The Council has agreed to resolve the matter by providing a suitable remedy for the injustice the complainants have been caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s assessment of child protection concerns. The matter is currently being considered by the courts.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council connected to its assessment of Miss X’s parenting and arrangements for the care of her child. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate.

Summary: Ms B complained about the way the Council handled the EHC plan process for her son, X. Ms B said the Council delayed in completing the assessment and EHC plan following the direction of the SEND tribunal. She said that as a result X missed nursery provision and his start at the specialist provision he needs was delayed by a year. She said it had an impact on the whole family. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice. It will apologise and make a payment to Ms B.

Summary: Ms B complained the Council failed to provide her son with alternative provision when he could not attend school for medical reasons. She adds the Council failed to provide the special educational provision in her son’s Education, Health and Care plan for over three years and it failed to hold and complete annual reviews and update the plan. We find the Council was at fault for failing to provide Ms B’s son with alternative provision in a timely manner. It also delayed holding and completing annual reviews and updating the Education, Health and Care plan. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her son, L, with a suitable education and the specialist provision set out in his Education, Health and Care plan between October 2021 and March 2023. Mrs X further complained the Council failed to take any action after partially upholding her complaint about the matter. The Council failed to provide L the specialist provision for two terms and a suitable education for two terms. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £3,400 to acknowledge the loss of provision and education to L and repay the £1,800 she spent on provision for him.

Summary: The complainant (Ms X) said the Council failed to provide her son (Y) with suitable alternative education since he stopped attending school, failed to deliver all special educational provisions (SEP) included in his Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP), delayed issuing Y’s EHCP following reassessment of his Education Health and Care (EHC) needs and failed during consideration of Ms X’s Personal Budget request. We found fault with the Council in all areas of Ms X’s complaint. This fault caused injustice to Y and Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise, review the educational provision offered to Y, re-consider Ms X’s request for Personal Budget, make payments for the loss of Y’s education and Ms X’s distress and introduce an information leaflet to be sent when responding to requests for Personal Budget.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has funded the special educational needs provision for a child. This is because the complaint is made on behalf of a public body.

Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained the Council paid them significantly less than other foster carers. There is no evidence of fault in the rate of pay Mr and Mrs X received as foster carers.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to respond to a complaint about the events leading to a child being taken into its care. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council responded.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her son’s Education, Health and Care plan and it failed to secure suitable alternative provision while it sourced a suitable school place for him. The Council acknowledged the delay in issuing the Education Health and Care plan. We found fault in the alternative provision the Council secured. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment in recognition of the injustice caused by the faults.

Summary: We have found the Council at fault for not considering alternative provision when it was made aware that Miss X’s son was not attending school. This left a vulnerable child out of education for a 4 month period.

Summary: The Council was at fault for delaying in putting in place the special educational provision in a child’s Education, Health and Care plan. This caused injustice as the child did not start receiving the provision when they should have. The Council agreed to apologise, make a payment to reflect the distress suffered and make a payment for the benefit of the child’s education, to recognise the time they spent without provision.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the education the Council is providing D. The Tribunal is considering what education and support D should have and we cannot investigate the same issues.

Summary: Ms M complains the Council refused to provide school transport for her son, B, for the 2021 – 2022 school year. Based on the evidence seen, the third appeal panel to consider her request does not appear to have considered Ms M's appeal properly.

Summary: There was delay in issuing an Education, Health and Care plan after a needs assessment. And, the Council did not provide alternative provision for a child out of school for 2 terms. The Education, Health and Care plan has now been issued and the Council has proposed to try out some alternative educational provision. This, with a payment for the time the child was out of education and the parents stress, remedies the injustice from the fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council refused to assess her daughter for an Education Health and Care Plan (“EHCP”) and then delayed completing the assessment, causing distress. We have not investigated the refusal to assess as Mrs X could have appealed. We found the Council at fault for delay. We recommended it pays Mrs X £500 for distress and uncertainty, issues a final EHCP, considers a remedy for any missed provision and acts to prevent recurrence.

Summary: There is no evidence of fault. The Council arranged alternative educational provision for a child out of school. The parent did not specifically ask for a second adult to be present at first. Once this specific request was made as the parent informed the Council they had returned to work full time, the Council then arranged for a second adult to be present during tuition sessions, which was later specified in an Education, Health and Care plan.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council assessed a child’s special educational needs. This is because the outcome of the assessment has been appealed to a tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about home to school transport for Miss X’s child. This is because the Council has agreed to provide individual transport and to reimburse Miss X’s costs. It is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about special educational needs provision and the Education Health and Care Plan process. The complaint is late and Mr X appealed to a tribunal. This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council completed a review for an Education Health and Care plan. There is nothing worthwhile to be achieved through investigating.

Summary: The Council was at fault for how it considered what financial support to provide Mr and Mrs X with. As a result, they cannot be sure they have received all of the financial support they should have to help them care for their grandchildren. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X and consider whether they should receive any further financial payments.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has delayed dealing with a complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s assessment and handling of his son’s support needs, and about delays handling his complaints. Mr X said it caused distress and put strain on his son because of numerous reassessments. We find the Council at fault for delays in the statutory complaints procedure. We are satisfied the Council has already accepted these faults and remedied the injustice to Mr X.

Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to respond to her request for a personal budget to fund her daughter’s SEN provision. She also complains about delay in the Council’s responses to annual reviews. We find the Council did not respond to Mrs Y’s request, failed to notify Mrs Y of the outcome of the reviews within four weeks and then sent confusing and contradictory letters about its intention to amend her daughter's Education Health and Care Plan. This fault caused injustice which the Council will remedy with the actions listed at the end of this statement.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about problems with the Education Health and Care Plan process. This is because the complaint has been upheld and it is unlikely an investigation would achieve anything significant.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council leaving a child with his father rather than removing him. The matters complained of are not separable from matters before a family court.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council wrongly advised her after a member of staff at her nursery raised a safeguarding alert about a child. Further investigation will not achieve anything meaningful and we cannot achieve the outcome she wants.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the actions of social workers. The matters complained of are not separable from matters that could reasonably be or have been raised in court.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to make alternative education provision for her son, Y when he stopped attending school and delayed issuing a final amended Education Health and Care Plan after an annual review in 2021 causing distress and uncertainty. We found fault as the Council failed to provide Y with alternative educational provision and delayed issuing the final amended Education Health and Care Plan. We have recommended a suitable remedy so have completed our investigation.

Summary: The complainant, Miss X, complained that the Council has failed to amend her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan after the 2022 review; failed to update her after a previous 2021 review; failed to respond to her complaint and other correspondence and delayed providing a personal transport budget. We find the Council at fault. This caused her and her son significant stress. To address the injustice caused by fault, we recommend several remedies.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about mediation arranged by the Council after a decision not to assess Mrs X’s child’s potential special educational needs. This is because there is not sufficient evidence of injustice caused by fault in the Council’s actions to warrant our involvement, as we could not say Mrs X would have avoided the need to appeal against its decision.

Summary: Miss B says the Council delayed completing child and family/carer/home safety assessments, delayed completing adaptations, failed to properly consider the level of support her son requires, failed to put in place suitable alternative school transport, delayed implementing recommendations following a complaint and delayed responding to a stage three complaint. The Council delayed carrying out various assessments, failed to properly consider a request for 2:1 support for Miss B’s son, failed to consider putting in place alternative transport and delayed implementing recommendations. An apology, payment to Miss B, a meeting with Miss B and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy.

Summary: Mx B complained the Council failed to take actions agreed in September 2022 following an earlier complaint. Also, that it failed to make reasonable adjustments to meet their needs as a disabled person. We discontinued our investigation because the Council offered to review its earlier findings on these matters, subject to Mx B clarifying if they remained dissatisfied and the reasons for this.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to disclose personal information. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to justify our involvement.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about child protection. This is because Mr X is not complaining as a member of the public, but in his professional role on behalf of a public body.

Summary: There is fault by the Council because it failed to consider Mrs B’s complaint about post adoption services in accordance with the children’s social care statutory complaints process. The Council has also failed to complete essential work it agreed to as part of its response to her complaint. The Council has agreed to complete the stage two investigation.