Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions in relation to Mr X’s child. We could not achieve the outcomes Mr X seeks. The Council has already accepted it was at fault and taken suitable action, and outstanding action requested by Mr X is an issue for the courts.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council’s children’s services placed her children in unsuitable foster care placements and failed to provide enough support to her and her children. These complaints were upheld through the children’s statutory complaints procedure. As this has been properly and thoroughly investigated through the statutory process we have not re-investigated the substantive issues. However we have found fault with the Council for delays in carrying out its complaint investigations and failure to implement all of the recommendations arising from one of the complaint investigations. These faults caused Ms X avoidable frustration and distress at an already difficult time. In recognition of the injustice caused by these faults, the Council has agreed to pay Ms X £300 and carry out service improvements.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about a letter written by the Council to the complainant’s ex-partner concerning a child. This is because the letter is linked to private law proceedings, and a legal bar prevents from investigating its content or how that content was arrived at.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alleged fault in child protection action relating to the complainant’s son. This is because we could not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out.

Summary: Once the Council became aware Ms X’s children were not attending school, it failed to either enforce their attendance, or give sufficient consideration to the suitability of the education being offered to the children. The Council also failed to complete one of its child protection enquiries for the children and did not consult sufficient health professionals during its child protection proceedings. To recognise the period of uncertainty caused regarding the children’s education, the Council has agreed to pay Ms X £1,000. To recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by its faults with the child protection proceedings, the Council has agreed to pay Ms X £200. The Council has also agreed to apologise and carry out service improvements.

Summary:

Summary: The Council’s delay making the provision in Child B’s Education, Health and Care plan was fault. The Council has agreed to apologise, provide services, make payments to Child B and Ms X, and act to improve its services.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to make suitable alternative provision for her daughter when she was unable to attend school because of anxiety. We found the Council was at fault in failing to put in place alternative provision between September 2022 and January 2023. The Council has agreed to make a payment to Mrs X in recognition of the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council gave her wrong information about school transport funding on the phone and its communication has been poor. The Council is at fault for delays in communication and providing misleading information although the Council has sought to address this in part.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure a young person, Miss W, continued to receive adult social care support and special educational provision when she moved into its area. The Council was at fault failing to ensure Miss W did not experience a break in her care services. This caused Miss W undue upset and Mr X avoidable frustration. The Council will apologise to them both, pay Mr X £400 total in recognition of that injustice, and review this complaint to identify points for learning and improvement. There was no fault in how the Council secured Miss W’s special educational provision.

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 and so we cannot question the panel’s decision.

Summary: The Council was not at fault for its use of medical evidence when considering the risk to Mrs B’s daughter. However, there was some fault in how the Council dealt with her case. Although it decided she was at risk of significant harm, it failed to arrange a child protection conference, as national guidance says it should have done. This meant the risk was not considered in line with proper procedure. The Council has agreed to take action to recognise Mrs B’s injustice and to improve its service.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s alleged failure to remove false information held on file regarding Ms X. This is because the complaint relates to events that took place more than 12 months ago and it would have been reasonable for Ms X to bring the complaint to us at the time.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions following an investigation into Ms X’s complaint under the statutory children complaints procedure. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome as the Council has made an appropriate offer to remedy the injustice caused to Ms X by the faults identified.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about his supervised contact with his children. We cannot achieve the outcome he seeks of this being unsupervised.

Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council did not put in place the Occupational Therapy provision required by an Education, Health and Care plan. Ensuring the provision is now made, along with an apology and payment remedies the injustice. There was also delay in arranging an annual review of the Education, Health and Care plan in 2022, but this did not cause added injustice as the plan was amended at the Special Educational Needs and Disability tribunal. There is no fault by the Council in not providing vouchers towards the cost of free school meals or in providing the other provision in the Education, Health and Care plan.

Summary: The Council took too long to issue an Education Health and Care plan (EHC plan) for Mrs B’s son. It did not ensure that it provided an alternative education when he was out of school, or that it met his sensory needs. It also did not always communicate with Mrs B properly. The Council has consulted numerous schools but has not found a school that can meet her son’s needs. He has missed education, and both he and Mrs B have suffered distress. The Council suggested a means to put things right, and it has agreed to my recommended improved remedy to better reflect the impact on the family.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to pay her daughter, Y’s, updated personal budget after it issued her final Education, Health, and Care plan in June 2022. The Council was at fault for delays in arranging Y’s personal budget. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £300 to remedy the uncertainty the delay caused.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process when the complainant moved into the Council’s area. This is because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s education, health and care plan review for her son. This is because Ms X has used her right of appeal to challenge the contents of the plan and any injustice from the Council’s delay is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal of the complainant’s application for school transport assistance for her son. This is because it would be reasonable for her to pursue the matter through the Council’s school transport appeal procedure.

Summary: The Council was at fault for how it arranged contact sessions between Miss X’s two children while one of them was in care. It was also at fault for how it dealt with Miss X’s complaints. It has agreed to offer symbolic payments to recognise the injustice caused. It has also agreed to offer a further symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused by a separate matter – communication with Miss X prior to care proceedings – for which it accepted it was at fault before our involvement.

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

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council provided for her son, Mr Y’s, special educational needs. There was fault in how the Council included details of direct payments in Mr Y’s Education Health and Care plans, how it took too long to amend the plan after a review and communicated with her poorly. This caused Mrs X and Mr Y avoidable uncertainty and distress. It also raised Mrs X’s expectations about what direct payments the Council would make. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy and improve its practices.

Summary: Miss X complains the Council failed to provide her son, Y, with Alternative Provision when he was unable to attend school. Miss X also complains the Council delayed in deciding whether Y should have an Education, Health and Care needs assessment. There is fault with the Council for failing to meet its duty to provide Alternative Provision to Y. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice to Miss X and to Y. The Council has also agreed to provide training to council officers.

Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete the assessment of his son’s education, health and care needs within the statutory deadline and that this delay is still ongoing. This has caused distress, uncertainty and possible lost provision. The Council accepts it is at fault for this failure and continuing delay. A suitable remedy is agreed.

Summary: Ms M complains about her dealings with the Council in connection with her daughter G’s education. I cannot resolve a disagreement about G’s education, and I cannot add to the Council’s complaint response.

Summary: The complainant (Ms X) said the Council failed to respond to her request for an Education Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for her daughter (Y) within the statutory timescales. She also complained about the way the Council handled her complaint. We found fault in all areas of this complaint. This fault caused Y and Ms X injustice. The Council has already apologised. The Council also agreed to make a payment to recognise Y’s and Ms X’s distress and review the system of handling the incoming electronic correspondence.

Summary: The Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs B’s daughter’s special educational needs assessment. There was a delay of three months, which meant she missed out on support and was late starting her new school. The Council was also at fault for how it handled Mrs B’s complaint. It has already made improvements to its service; however, it has also agreed to apologise to Mrs B, make a symbolic financial remedy to her daughter, and deliver staff training.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to provide transport for Miss X’s son to attend two school trips. This is because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Miss X.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the decision not to provide the complainant’s son with free transport to school. This is because the Council has now agreed to provide transport. An investigation would be unlikely to achieve anything more.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaints about the Council’s provision of education to her son and its data handling. This is because we cannot investigate matters linked to Miss X’s Tribunal appeal or where Miss X has started court action. And because the Information Commissioner is the suitable body to consider the data protection complaint.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to offer her children alternative educational provision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has carried out an Education Health and Care assessment. This is because the complainant has appealed to the SEND Tribunal and the issues raised are inseparable from this appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council withdrawing a school place. This is because we could not achieve anything more.

Summary: Mr D complained the Council failed to tell him it put his daughter on a child in need plan. He also says there was an unacceptable turnover of social workers, and the Council gave him inconsistent information about the complaints process. We find the Council was at fault for failing to tell Mr D it put his daughter on a child in need plan. It was also at fault for how it dealt with the complaint. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to address the injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a safeguarding investigation which took place in 2011. The complaint is late.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her son with a suitable education and support for his special educational needs. We have discontinued this investigation because Miss X had an alternative remedy by which to challenge the Council’s actions. The fact she was unaware of the appeal process was not due to fault by the Council.

Summary: The complainant (Ms X) complained about the way the Council reassessed her daughter’s (Y) educational, health and care (EHC) needs and carried out a Personal Budget (PB) process for her. Ms X also complained about the Council’s failings when communicating with her and handling her complaint. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused Y and Ms X injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, make distress payments to Y and Ms X, complete the reassessment and carry out some service improvements in addition to the remedy already offered by the Council in December 2022.

Summary: Mrs M complains about the Council's handling of her application for transport for her son B's post-16 education. I uphold Mrs M’s complaints about the lack of information on the Council’s website and in its policies about payments instead of transport, and delay by the Council making decisions. The Council’s undertaking to improve its website and policies, and its apology for the delay, are a suitable remedy. I do not uphold Mrs M’s complaint about the mileage rate used by the Council or its decision not to pay for her time. There is no fault in these decisions. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions made without fault.

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council failed to secure the provision in her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The complaint is late.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr and Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s Schools Admissions Appeal Panel’s failure to provide their child with a place at School Y. This is because it is unlikely the Ombudsman would find fault.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not properly complete a social care assessment with her child, Y. The Council was at fault for failing to investigate Mrs X’s complaint at stage two of the statutory children’s complaints procedure. The Council has agreed to carry out a stage two investigation of Mrs X’s complaint. It will also apologise to Mrs X and give her a symbolic payment for the distress and frustration caused.

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: We will not investigate this complaint about advice the Council gave to the complainant about contact with his daughter. The complaint is late and there are no grounds to consider it now.

Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint because it lies outside our jurisdiction. This is because it is about matters that have been considered in court proceedings.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to protect Mr X from abuse as a child in the 1980s. We could not come to sound conclusions now or achieve a meaningful outcome for Mr X, and he could reasonably have complained sooner.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s involvement in Mrs X’s children’s case. There are current court proceedings and police investigations ongoing. After those processes have completed, it is open to Mrs X to complain again.

Summary: Ms X complains the Council failed to issue an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her child, B, within the statutory timeframe. She also complains the Council failed to provide B with suitable alternative education provision and communicated poorly. We have found the Council at fault for the delay in issuing a final EHC Plan. We have also found the Council at fault for failing to arrange suitable alternative provision for B for periods during the 2020/2021 and 2021/22 academic years. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. There are parts of Ms X’s complaint that we have not investigated. We explain why in our statement.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to finalise her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan before she started secondary school. She said the Council also delayed putting funding in place for the school to recruit a teaching assistant for her daughter. The Council was at fault for poor communication and for failing to finalise Y’s EHC plan and funding before she started secondary school.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in completing the education, health and care plan needs assessment for her son Y and that Y had been out of education since November 2022 and the Council had not responded to her complaints about the same. The Council failed to issue an education, health and care plan for Y in line with the statutory timescales, failed to ensure Y had a suitable education between December 2022, and March 2023 and failed to ensure Y received the provision in his plan between March 2023 and July 2023. The Council agreed to pay Mrs X £5,225 to recognise the impact of the faults identified.

Summary: We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has refused to fund alternative education for her child Y after they have stopped attending school. That is because Ms X’s complaint is not separable from matters she is appealing to the Tribunal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Special Educational Needs provision and Education, Health and Care plans because it is late without good reasons to exercise discretion to investigate it now.

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.