Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (24 019 584)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 29-Apr-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about a child and family assessment. We are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has offered and the Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed.

Buckinghamshire Council (24 019 784)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 29-Apr-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s safeguarding enquiries regarding his child, Y. This is because the Council apologised, and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further.

London Borough of Ealing (24 020 033)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Disabled children 29-Apr-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing Mr X’s child a blue badge. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making to warrant us investigating.

London Borough of Merton (24 020 060)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Other 29-Apr-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has dealt with Mr X and child in need matters involving his children. The Council has already investigated and responded to Mr X’s concerns under all three stages of the statutory complaint procedure. It has apologised and offered remedial action and payment for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We could not add to the Council’s response.

Devon County Council (24 020 936)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 29-Apr-2025

Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council was at fault in the course of child protection action and in its response to the complainant’s subsequent complaint. The complaint is late and there are no grounds for us to investigate it now.

East Sussex County Council (24 008 152)

Statement Upheld Other 28-Apr-2025

Summary: Mrs B complained about the process leading to, and content of, a section 17 family assessment in respect of her son, C. We have found fault because the Council did not arrange a proper assessment visit with Mrs B or allow her the opportunity to comment on negative conclusions reached about her as part of the assessment. We welcome the Council’s offer to meet with Mrs B now and consider if any further changes to the assessment are possible. The Council has also agreed to apologise to Mrs B, pay her £300 and improve its procedures for the future.

Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council (24 008 242)

Statement Upheld Looked after children 28-Apr-2025

Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to fulfil its duties towards her as a Looked After Child. She said the Council failed to involve her in discussions about her care planning and whether it could continue to accommodate her. Ms X also said the Council’s decision that she was not entitled to a pathway plan, personal advisor, or ongoing support, was wrong. We have found the Investigating Officer’s stage two report failed to fully address identified injustice to Ms X. We have also found the Council at fault for inconsistencies in its adjudication response and for failing to show it properly considered whether it needed consent to support Ms X. The Council has agreed to pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise Ms X’s lost opportunity to benefit from the support of personal advisors at a critical time. The Council has also agreed to review its decision on whether Ms X should have kept her status as an eligible and relevant child.

West Northamptonshire Council (24 021 275)

Statement Closed after initial enquiries Child protection 28-Apr-2025

Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling following a safeguarding referral about his child. The law prevents us from investigating anything that is the subject of court proceedings and could reasonably be raised in court.

Lancashire County Council (24 006 809)

Statement Upheld Looked after children 27-Apr-2025

Summary: Mrs B complained about how the Council handled care and contact arrangements for her grandchildren. We have not investigated all aspects of the complaint because some matters have been considered by the court. The Council took longer than expected to arrange therapy for Mrs B as recommended by the court. It cannot show that it considered the timing of the therapy during this delay, nor that it explained to Mrs B why it was taking so long. This caused Mrs B significant distress. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and make a symbolic payment to recognise the impact of the delay.

London Borough of Haringey (24 011 580)

Statement Upheld Child protection 27-Apr-2025

Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to properly investigate her complaints about the Council’s actions following the decision to place her grandson in her care. She also complained the Council has failed to address her concerns or provide an appropriate remedy. We found the Council’s failure to provide support and the use of an inappropriate contact centre are fault. This fault caused Miss X unnecessary distress. To remedy this, the Council will apologise and make a payment to Miss X.