Summary: Ms X complained the Council mismanaged her daughter’s education and SEN provision. There was delay in issuing a final plan, but this was not unreasonable in the circumstances. The Council should have done more to ensure Y received an education when it was aware she was not attending school during the autumn term. This is fault.

Summary: The complainant (Miss X) said the Council failed to provide her son (Y) with alternative education and special educational provision listed in his Education Health and Care (EHC) plan since January 2022. She also complained about the social care support for Y, the delays in the reassessment of Y’s needs and the Council’s refusal to fund Y’s travel to and from his therapy providers. We found fault with the Council’s reimbursement of Miss X’s travel costs and also with the delays in issuing Y’s amended EHC plan after the reassessment of his needs. This fault caused injustice to Miss X and Y. We also found fault with the way the Council carried out the children’s statutory complaint procedure for Miss X, but this fault did not cause injustice to her or to Y. We did not find fault with the provision of alternative education to Y or with the delivery of his special educational provision. We recommend the Council apologise, make a payment to recognise her distress and carry out some service improvements.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to offer alternative educational provision for Mrs X’s child. A legal ruling prevents us investigating most of the period covered by this complaint, and given the Council has already offered a payment of £3250, investigation by us of the remaining period would not lead to a better outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Education Health and Care Plan process for the complainant’s child. Part of the complaint is late, and the complainant has now appealed to a tribunal. This places the complaint outside our jurisdiction.

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 and so we cannot question the panel’s decision.

Summary: A parent complained about the school admission appeal panel’s decision to turn down her appeal for a place for her child at her preferred primary school. But we will not start an investigation of this matter as we are unlikely to find fault by the panel.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of her appeal against the refusal to offer her child a place at their preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Summary: Ms B complained the Council had not provided sufficient support to her and her two children who have additional needs. She said that overnight respite had not been provided and the Council had not completed the actions it undertook to do in response to her complaint. She said that as a result she and her children have not had the support they need both in terms of respite and the support she needs as a carer. There was fault which caused injustice. The Council will take the action recommended below, apologise to Ms B and make a payment to her.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council failing to reply to her Children Services complaint properly. It has now agreed to do so.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to disclose relevant information about children before adoption. The complaint is late and there is no good reason to consider it now.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the actions of the Council’s children’s services officers. This is because the Council is not at fault in declining to consider the complaint while legal proceedings are ongoing, and we cannot investigate matters relating to reports completed for a court of law.

Summary: We will not investigate this late complaint about the Council’s children’s services not providing sufficient support to Ms X’s family. There is not a good reason for the delay in bringing the complaint to the Ombudsman. Ms X should make any complaint about more recent events to the Council and then us, if necessary.

Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide alternative provision after her son Y, become a school refuser. We have concluded our investigation having made a finding of fault. There were periods when the Council failed to ensure Y was receiving alternative provision, and I have not seen evidence the Council appropriately considered its section 19 duty. We also found fault after matters drifted when attempting to secure a placement for Y to begin in September 2022. Further, we found that Mrs X was not always kept informed, and there were instances when the Council failed to respond to Mrs X. The Council have agreed to our recommendations.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to provide all the provision set out in her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan. Mrs X said this meant her daughter missed out on provision she was entitled to, and it caused Mrs X unnecessary distress and frustration. We find there was a service failure which caused Mrs X and her daughter injustice. The Council will apologise and make a payment to Mrs X to reflect the injustice caused.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council refused to reimburse the costs for transporting her children to their special schools after she had moved into its area. We found fault because the Council had a duty to provide transport earlier than it did. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not conduct her son’s school admissions appeal correctly. We have found fault because the stage two part of the process misinterpreted the information Mrs X provided. To remedy the injustice caused by this fault, the Council has agreed to apologise and arrange a fresh appeal.

Summary: Mr X complained that the Council’s school admissions appeal panel did not properly consider his appeal for a place for his child at his preferred secondary school. We found no fault by the appeal panel. However, we found the Council was at fault in that its website did not clearly explain the boundary of the school’s catchment area. This did not cause Mr X an injustice, but the Council has agreed to make the information on its website clearer for the benefit of future applicants.

Summary: Ms X complained that the Council’s school admissions appeal panel failed to properly consider her appeal for a place for her child at her preferred secondary school. We found there was insufficient evidence that the appeal panel properly considered the appeal. In recognition of the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to offer Ms X a fresh appeal with a different panel and clerk.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council’s school transport policy is flawed and has been wrongly applied. This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part, and it would be reasonable for the complainant to use the Council’s appeal process.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint from a parent that a school admission appeal hearing in his child’s case was not independent. This is because there is no sign of fault in the appeal panel’s consideration of the appeal which caused the parent an injustice.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to provide a suitable educational placement for the complainant’s son. This is because the complainant has used her right to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

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: Mr X complained about the Council’s refusal to escalate his statutory children’s complaint to the stage three panel. The Council was not at fault in how it decided not to accept Mr X’s late request for the panel. It was at fault for its other rationales for refusing Mr X’s request. However, this did not cause Mr X a significant personal injustice, because the Council still would not have carried out the panel.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning where Ms X’s child should live. Where the child should live has been subject to court action and we cannot consider that. Ms X also has a right to go to court it would be reasonable to use while her child remains under 18.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has refused to consider a complaint about the care of the complainant’s children, until court proceedings have concluded. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about children services’ actions. We cannot investigate what happens in a school or Court proceedings. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed to consider his information complaint.

Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed in completing her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan and it was incomplete when issued. The Council also delayed in determining a suitable educational package. We find that the Council has been at fault, causing injustice to Mrs X and her daughter. The Council has agreed the recommended ways to remedy the complaint. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

Summary: Mr and Mrs B complained the Council required them to enter into a contract to receive the personal budget that was to meet their daughter’s special educational needs. They considered the contract was ambiguous and could mean that their daughter’s agreed needs would not be met. As they have not signed the document the budget is not in payment so their daughter is not receiving all the specified support. There was fault by the Council. The Council will take the action specified, apologise and make a payment as recommended below.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure some of the provision in her daughter, Miss Y’s, Education, Health and Care plan. She also complained about the wording of the plan and the documents included in its appendix. The Council was at fault for failing to secure the career coaching and mental health interventions in Miss Y’s plan. It was also at fault for failing to respond to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council will apologise to Mrs X and Miss Y and pay Mrs X a total of £2200 in recognition of the impact of the lost provision on Miss Y and the distress she felt. It will also carry out staff training.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed carrying out her daughter, Child Y’s Education Health and Care (EHC) plan annual review in line with the statutory timescales and then delayed issuing Child Y with the amended EHC plan following the annual review. The Council was at fault for delaying Child Y’s annual review and not explaining the annual review decision, which caused Ms X distress and uncertainty and delayed her right of appeal. The Council will make a payment to Ms X to acknowledge the injustice this caused her. Ms X had a right of appeal to the tribunal over Child Y’s provision.

Summary: Mrs X complained about how the Council refused to give her son a place at her preferred secondary school. The admission appeal panel arranged by the Council failed to fully consider all Mrs X’s grounds of appeal. The Council agreed to arrange a new appeal panel and reconsider Mrs X’s appeal.

Summary: A parent complained about the refusal of a place for her child at her preferred secondary school and the school admission appeal panel’s rejection of her appeal about this matter. But we will not investigate this complaint as there is no sign of fault in the way the panel considered the appeal.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused to consider a complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Complaints about how the Council has responded to a Freedom of Information request is better dealt with by the Information commissioner and we cannot investigate matters previously considered by the Ombudsman.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint that the Council has declined to reimburse the complainant’s school fees. This is because she has used her right to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and the matter is inextricably linked to the subject of the appeal.

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: We will not investigate this complaint about Council’s decision to name a mainstream school in a child’s Education Health and Care plan, and the suitability of the education provision whilst the complainant appealed the decision. This is because the complainant has used their right of appeal to a tribunal, and the matters she complains about are not separable from that appeal.

Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about how he was treated in school. This is because the law prevents us from considering complaints about what happens in schools.

Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s mismanagement and wrongful outcome of an allegation management process it carried out. He said this had serious mental and physical effects on him and his family and affected his ability to gain employment. We find the Council was at fault. The Council has agreed to several recommendations to address this injustice caused by fault.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with matters relating to the care of her child. This is because it concerns matters that have either been considered in court or can only be challenged in court. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council carried out its investigation about other matters, so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaint. This is because the complaint concerns matters that happened during court proceedings. We cannot investigate how the Council dealt with a complaint about a matter we have no legal power to investigate.

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the information the Council gave her about an investigation. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to consider his complaint about a social worker’s court report until ongoing court proceedings have concluded. This is because there is no sign of fault in the Council’s decision.

Summary: Mrs C complained the Council caused delays in the Education, Health and Care plan process for Miss X, failed to provide enough alternative provision, and wrongly refused to arrange transport directly to Miss X’s relevant educational provider. We found the Council at fault for causing delays in the EHC plan process and its complaints process. It also failed to provide Miss X with a full-time alternative provision and wrongly refused her school transport request. The Council should apologise and make payment to remedy the injustice its faults caused.

Summary: Mrs B complains the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for her daughter. There was fault in how the Council recorded its decision that the education was available and accessible, but this did not cause injustice as it had no section 19 duty to make alternative provision.

Summary: Mrs B complained the Council delayed issuing her daughter D’s education, health and care plan. She said because of the Council’s actions, her daughter missed education, health and care provision. She said D has been out of education since December 2021 and she had to home educate her. We found fault with the Council for delay issuing the education, health and care plan. This was because of a shortage of Educational Psychologists. The delay caused Mrs B and her daughter distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs B and D by this delay by making Mrs B a financial payment.

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s School Admissions Appeal Panel’s handling of his appeal against the refusal to offer his child a place at their preferred school. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant further investigation.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s consideration of Miss X’s school transport appeal. Investigation by us would not find that the original panel that considered Miss X’s appeal should have awarded transport, and thus we could not say that Miss X incurred the costs claimed as a result of fault by the Council.

Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s handling of safeguarding concerns about Mr X’s children.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about a children’s social worker. Mr X could reasonably have raised all his concerns as part of a court process.

Summary: We will not investigate matters raised in connection with the care and custody of the complainant’s grandchild. This is because the matter was decided in court.

Summary: Miss X complains a Council officer lied during court proceedings over ten years ago resulting in her losing custody of a child. There are no good reasons to investigate this late complaint as it is caught by the time bar on our powers. But, even if Miss X had complained promptly, we cannot investigate matters decided at court.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing her child, K’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The Council was at fault for delay caused by a shortage of Educational Psychologists. This caused a delay in the Council issuing K’s final EHC plan. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X £300 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty the delays had on her.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in completing the Education, Health and Care Plan needs assessment for her son J and failed to take the actions it identified as necessary after it upheld her complaint about the same matter. Mrs X also complained J was without education between November 2022 and July 2023. The Council delayed in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan for J for 25 weeks, failed to provide an alternative education for two terms and failed to take the action it identified as necessary after upholding Mrs X’s complaint. The Council will pay Mrs X £5,575 to recognise the frustration, distress and lack of education caused to her and J.

Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed completing her child, P’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The Council was at fault for delay caused by a shortage of Educational Psychologists. This means the Council has not yet issued P’s final EHC plan. The Council will apologise and pay Ms X £200 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty the delays had on her. It will make an ongoing payment of £100 per month until it issues P’s final EHC plan.

Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about school admissions as the schools are either an Academy or a Free School and we cannot investigate those types of schools.

Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to properly support her as a care leaver. She complained staff were rude and the Council did not provide a proper care leaver’s grant or support her with housing. We found the Council failed to consider the complaint through the appropriate statutory complaints process. However, this did not lead to significant injustice in Miss X’s case. We found no fault in the support provided to Miss X.

Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to pay the full fostering allowance after she agreed to provide car for her four grandchildren causing anxiety and financial hardship. The period in dispute is about one month. The Council failed to properly explain the financial situation in respect of a private family arrangement and gave the impression it might make payments, which is fault. A suitable remedy is proposed.

Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions concerning Miss X’s infant child. This is because the matters complained of are not separable from the child’s residence and contact arrangements, which have been decided by a court.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council made false allegations about the complainant. This is because our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation already carried out, or lead to a different outcome.

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about inaccurate information held by the Council which the complainant said was shared with her employer leading to the complainant being dismissed and her being barred from working with children. This is because the complainant should take her concerns to the Information Commissioner.