Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to respond reasonably to the complainant’s concerns about his son and has failed to provide appropriate information and services to him and his family. This is because we would not add anything significant to the investigation which has already been carried out under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr X, complains that the Council has failed to respond reasonably to his concerns about his son and has failed to provide appropriate information and services to him and his family.
2. He further complains that children’s services officers failed to provide required information during his son’s Education Health and Care Needs Assessment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X’s son, who I will refer to as Y, was accommodated by the Council under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 in 2022, after Mr X had asked the Council for support regarding his needs and behaviour. The placement was terminated when Mr X withdrew his support for it. Y now lives independently and is supported by the Council.
9. Mr X complains that there were failures on the Council’s part before, during and after the foster placement. Specifically, he is critical of the Council’s communication with him and his family, the frequent changes of Y’s social worker and the lack of services provided.
10. Mr X used his right to complain to the Council under the statutory procedure for complaints about children’s services. The complaint completed the three stages of the procedure and was upheld in part. The Council accepted the findings of the investigation, apologised, and offered a symbolic payment in line with the recommendations of the stage three review panel.
11. Mr X does not accept that the complaint response is adequate. He wants the Council to provide his family with counselling and therapy. He also argues that Y’s current care arrangements are inadequate.
12. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with an independent response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory procedure, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
13. We may decide to look at whether there were any significant flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.
14. There is no indication of fault in the way Mr X’s complaint was considered. The findings of the investigation are reasonable and defensible, and the Council has accepted them in full. That being the case, there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene. Y’s ongoing care did not form part of the investigation, so does not fall to be considered by the Ombudsman.
15. Mr X further complains about the actions of children’s services officers in respect of Y’s Education Health and Care Needs Assessment. He says that they failed to submit evidence, and that the Council refused to issue an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan).
16. We will not investigate this aspect of Mr X’s complaint. The decision not to issue an EHC Plan is a matter about which he had the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Where appeal rights are available, the Ombudsman normally expects them to be used.
17. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to have appealed to the SEND Tribunal. Had he done so, he would have been able to raise the matters which led to the Council’s decision not to issue an EHC Plan in that forum, including the impact of the actions of children’s services. This was the appropriate recourse available to Mr X. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we would not add anything significant to the investigation already carried out.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman