Other


Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Warrington Council (18 013 731)

    Statement Upheld Other 16-Oct-2019

    Summary: Ms B complains about the actions of the Council following referral alleging emotional abuse of her daughter, D, by D's father. She also complains about how the Council dealt with her complaint about the matter. The Ombudsman finds no fault by the Council in how it dealt with the concerns of abuse Ms B raised with it, and any faults in the statutory complaint investigation were not so significant as to warrant re-investigation of the complaint by the Ombudsman. There was however delay by the Council in completing its consideration of her complaint. As a result, Ms B was put to some time and trouble pursuing the matter, for which the Council has agreed appropriate remedy.

  • Staffordshire County Council (18 015 217)

    Statement Upheld Other 07-Oct-2019

    Summary: the Council failed to provide effective support for Ms M to care for her son, H, when it decided more support was needed. As a result, Ms M has been left to care for H without the support the Council decided she needed. This lasted over a year. The Council did not make a decision at all when Ms M said she could no longer cope and asked the Council to take H into care.

  • London Borough of Wandsworth (18 018 494)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr Z complains of failings by the Council in dealing with him as the father of a young child, X. There was fault in several matters, though not all. These faults included poor communication and significant delay in dealing with Mr Z's complaint. These caused him lost opportunity and unnecessary time and trouble as well as a loss of trust in the Council. The Council will apologise, pay Mr Z £805 and place a copy of this decision on X's social care records.

  • Lancashire County Council (18 017 554)

    Statement Upheld Other 04-Oct-2019

    Summary: Mr Y complained the Council failed to provide him with his 'approved list' or inform him which children he could have contact with, with 'the express approval of social services' (as per the wording of his Sexual Harm Prevention Order). It also failed to give proper direction to another council as to what information to provide to him. There is evidence of Council fault and the Council has agreed to apologise, to make a payment for time and trouble and to ensure its procedures are clear.

  • Bath and North East Somerset Council (18 016 627)

    Statement Not upheld Other 27-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the way the Council handled an urgent child protection matter, particularly the actions of two social workers. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because it is unlikely he could add to the Council's previous investigation, nor can he achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

  • Staffordshire County Council (18 015 330)

    Statement Not upheld Other 26-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mr B complained about the removal of residential provision at school for his daughter, C, who has special educational needs. We find the Council's position on this provision is unclear and contradictory. We consider Mr B should include the issue in his upcoming appeal to the Tribunal.

  • London Borough of Sutton (18 018 304)

    Statement Not upheld Other 24-Sep-2019

    Summary: Miss B complains the Council did not properly deal with a s17 child in need assessment. The Council was not at fault in how it carried out the s17 assessment, but it did not deal with Miss B's complaint through the correct complaints process. Miss B did not suffer any injustice because of this.

  • Cumbria County Council (18 014 964)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Sep-2019

    Summary: The Ombudsman upholds Mr X's complaint about the lack of nursery provision for his son Y when he was a looked after child. The Council failed to take action to arrange transport to Y's existing nursery or to identify an alternative nursery for him to attend. It also did not complete a Personal Education Plan (PEP). As a result, Y lost an opportunity to receive early education, including support with his speech and building relationships with his peers. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X, make a payment to him and to Y, and review its procedures to ensure timescales for PEPs are clear.

  • Leicestershire County Council (18 005 770)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Sep-2019

    Summary: Ms X complains the Council left her to deal with a building contractor after 2015, when shoddy works to adapt their home were carried out and that it has since failed to re-assess her daughter, Z, as a child-in-need. She says this has means Z has not been able to use the downstairs shower that was installed. Ms X did not raise with the Council the matter of Z being a possible child-in-need until 2018, so we will not consider matters before then. But the Council failed for six months after we first told it the failed adaptations might mean Z is now a child-in-need to recognise its duty to re-assess her. It will not be possible to know if this delay caused any injustice to Z until it completes the overdue assessment.

  • North Yorkshire County Council (18 018 159)

    Statement Upheld Other 16-Sep-2019

    Summary: Mr X complains about the Council's role in the investigation of an incident at school where his son was placed in a room behind a locked door. There was fault in the Council's role in the oversight of the investigation and in its handling of Mr X's complaint. The Council will apologise.