Recent statements in this category are shown below:

  • Cambridgeshire County Council (19 001 866)

    Statement Upheld Other 14-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mr B says the Council wrongly placed his son on a child protection plan when it accepts it failed to follow the right process and completed a flawed single assessment. There were some errors in the single assessment which did not affect the overall outcome. The Council failed to consider sharing a redacted version of the single assessment with Mr B before the initial child protection conference. Those errors have undermined Mr B's confidence in the process. An apology and reminder to officers is satisfactory remedy for the injustice caused.

  • Wiltshire Council (19 000 322)

    Statement Upheld Other 05-Feb-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the procedure carried out by the Council's Designated Officer for Allegations. She says this led to an incorrect finding being made against her which has had devastating consequences for her both personally and professionally. The Ombudsman has found fault because the procedure did not allow for a proper consideration of her version of events. There was also fault with the complaint procedure which was too restrictive in its remit and its failure to make a referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service. To remedy this, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and investigate her complaint again.

  • Lancashire County Council (19 001 383)

    Statement Upheld Other 24-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain about the adequacy of the Council's handling of their complaint under the statutory children's complaints' procedure. Mr and Mrs X are unhappy with the stage 2 investigation and said the Council have refused to escalate the complaint to a stage 3 review panel. The Council was it fault. Its decision not to escalate the complaint to a stage 3 review panel was not in line with the statutory guidance. The Council agreed to hold a stage 3 panel within one month of the final decision and pay Mr and Mrs X a total of £350 to recognise the delays, distress, frustration and time and trouble caused by its faults.

  • Devon County Council (18 012 635)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mrs X complains about the Council's remedy offer following an investigation of her complaints under the statutory children complaints procedure. Mrs X says the Council's offer is not proportionate to the injustice caused by the faults identified. The Ombudsman finds fault with how the Council has considered the findings. We have recommended a financial remedy.

  • Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council (19 002 445)

    Statement Upheld Other 23-Jan-2020

    Summary: The Council failed to ensure Miss B's son was provided with suitable full-time education, failed to provide Miss B with support in relation to her sons' special educational needs, took too long to decide not to issue an Education, Health and Care plan and failed to tell Miss B how to escalate her complaints which significantly prolonged the complaints process. The Council has agreed to make payments and apologise to Miss B and her sons and take action to prevent similar failings in future.

  • London Borough of Redbridge (18 007 646)

    Statement Upheld Other 09-Jan-2020

    Summary: Ms X complains about delays in the Council's consideration of her complaint under the children's statutory complaints procedure. She says the Council has not considered her complaint within the statutory timescales and the delays have caused her distress. The Council is at fault. The Council has agreed to complete its consideration of Ms X's complaint, apologise to her for the delay and pay her £300 to acknowledge the distress caused, and review its procedures.

  • London Borough of Hounslow (19 002 269)

    Statement Upheld Other 08-Jan-2020

    Summary: The Council failed to provide Ms X with reasons for ending support to her and her son. The Council also referred Ms X for mediation which was not suitable for her needs and she was caused distress as a result. The Council should pay Ms X £300 to recognise the distress caused and offer to provide Ms X and her family with further support.

  • Sunderland City Council (19 002 550)

    Statement Upheld Other 08-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr X complained about the Council's actions in connection with its involvement with his child as a child in need. The Council carried out a robust investigation of his complaints, upholding some of them, but was at fault for delay in the complaints process. The Council will pay Mr X the £600 it offered during the course of the investigation to acknowledge his time, trouble and avoidable distress.

  • Northumberland County Council (19 001 727)

    Statement Upheld Other 06-Jan-2020

    Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council was at fault in how it dealt with their complaint about its Children's Services following involvement with their family. The Council has accepted it was at fault and delayed progressing the stage one and two of the complaint procedure. It has apologised and offered a payment in recognition of the time and trouble Mr and Mrs X have been put to in pursuing their complaint, so we are completing our investigation.

  • Gloucestershire County Council (19 006 719)

    Statement Not upheld Other 18-Dec-2019

    Summary: Miss H complained the Council had failed to take appropriate action although it acknowledged an assessment on her son should not have been issued. Miss H was still in dialogue with the Council and hoped it would resolve these outstanding matters. As this case is primarily about data protection and records matters, the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) is best placed to investigate if the Council fails to take the appropriate remedial action.