Disabled children


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Wokingham Borough Council (16 009 495)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 20-Mar-2017

    Summary: There has been an unreasonable delay in dealing with some of the complainant's concerns about her daughter's needs. But the Council has now offered a resolution to the complainant which the Ombudsman considers is appropriate. The Ombudsman does not consider that he could achieve anything more for the complainant by pursuing the complaint.

  • London Borough of Barnet (16 008 694)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled children 09-Mar-2017

    Summary: There is no fault in the Council's assessment of Mr X's son's eligibility for services from the Council's children's disabilities team.

  • Manchester City Council (16 011 865)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 08-Mar-2017

    Summary: There was fault in the consideration by the short breaks panel of the request for increased targeted support. It was not clear how the eligibility criteria had been applied and the decision was not given in writing. There was fault in the Council's consideration of the complaint. The Council will reassess the family and pay Ms B £100.

  • Kent County Council (16 015 127)

    Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled children 01-Mar-2017

    Summary: The Ombudsman will exercise his general discretion not to investigate Mr B's complaint about the Council's correspondence regarding charging for his son's care. This is because the charging issue has been resolved and it is unlikely an Ombudsman investigation would add to the response already provided by the Council about the tone and content of its letter.

  • London Borough of Croydon (16 008 028)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 10-Feb-2017

    Summary: Mrs X complained through the Children Act statutory complaints process about the support provided to her son. The Council failed to meet the timescales of the statutory complaints process and then delayed in acting on its recommendations. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £500 for the time, trouble and distress caused.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (16 004 989)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 31-Jan-2017

    Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to properly assess his son's needs and to put in place services to meet those needs. There is evidence of fault and the Council has been asked to engage an independent social worker to conduct another assessment.

  • Sunderland City Council (16 007 277)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled children 17-Jan-2017

    Summary: There is no fault in the Council's decision to convert Miss B's dining room and not to build an extension to meet the needs of her disabled son, C. The Ombudsman cannot question Council decisions taken without fault.

  • Wiltshire Council (16 002 003)

    Statement Upheld Disabled children 10-Jan-2017

    Summary: The Council was not at fault in the way it responded to concerns about a relationship between two vulnerable young people. The Council was at fault in failing to document all contacts it received and its decision-making about the matter, but this did not lead to injustice.

  • London Borough of Bexley (16 006 472)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled children 10-Nov-2016

    Summary: Mr G was unhappy with a letter the Council wrote to him. The investigation has been discontinued because further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

  • Lancashire County Council (15 019 226)

    Statement Not upheld Disabled children 17-Oct-2016

    Summary: There is no evidence that Ms X suffered any injustice as a result of the way the Council completed its first assessment of her care needs, or any fault in the way it undertook the second assessment or considered Mr X's complaint. The complaint is not upheld.

;