Summary: Ms X complains the Council refused her initial request for a letter of support when applying for secondary school places for her child. The Council has accepted it was at fault. It has already apologised and provided Ms X with a suitable letter. So, we are completing our investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant whom I shall refer to as Ms X complains the Council refused her initial request to provide a letter of support when she applied for a secondary school place for her child.
2. Ms X says this has caused her distress as it has hindered her ability to keep her child safe from her ex- partner and move to new accommodation. Ms X says her child will need to move from their current school once she secures alternative accommodation.
3. Ms X considers the Council negligent and failed in its duty of care towards her child.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
6. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have read the papers submitted by Ms X and spoken to her about the complaint. I considered the Council’s comments on the complaint and the supporting documents it provided.
8. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Ms X moved into her current accommodation in 2014. This was in the same area as her ex-partner, Mr Y, the father of her child. Ms X said she was at risk of domestic abuse from Mr Y and suffered harassment from him. In 2016 the Council’s Children’s Services carried out a Child and Family assessment as Mr Y was being released from prison on licence. One licence condition needed Mr Y not to contact Ms X and child but there were concerns he may try to do so.
10. The Council advised Ms X to engage with housing services and bid for properties to address her need for alternative accommodation. Mr Y’s licence conditions ended in 2018.
11. In November 2018 while Ms X applied for a secondary school place for her child. She contacted the Council’s Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH) for Children’s Services. And asked for a supporting letter to go with the application form explaining their situation and risk in the community due to Mr Y living nearby. Ms X wanted to apply for a school away from the area. Ms X also raised several points she wanted information on.
12. A MASH officer responded to the email and gave advice and information on how Ms X could access her records for the information she requested. Ms X emailed again saying she needed the letter to support the secondary school applications. Ms X says MASH and the Early Help service (EH) refused her request.
13. Ms X complained to the Council in March 2019 her child had been allocated a place at a nearby school and the documents she provided were not enough to support a social application. Ms X asked for information about Mr Y’s licence conditions as she intended to appeal for a place at a school of her choice for her child.
14. A Children’s Services officer contacted Ms X to clarify her concerns. The officer said MASH declined the request in November 2018 as there was no social work involvement with the family. The Council confirms there was no current safety plan in place for the child then and only intermittent involvement with the family from the Early Help service.
15. The officer advised Ms X the Council could not provide a supporting letter specifically to support school admissions. But it could provide a letter confirming previous social work involvement, concerns around domestic abuse and advice and support provided to the family. The officer said the letter could not comment on Mr Y or his licence conditions as social services did not have that information. The officer suggested Ms X contact the probation service for information.
16. The officer agreed to ask a MASH officer to prepare and send a letter to Ms X outlining social services previous involvement with the family.
17. A MASH officer prepared and sent a letter to Ms X on 25 March 2019. Ms X complained on 28 March 2018 to the Children’s Services officer saying she was unhappy with the letter. Ms X said she could not use it as it did not explain why she needed to move accommodation because of Mr Y, why her child was at risk and could only apply to certain schools. Ms X also disputed comments made in the letter by the MASH officer.
18. The officer reviewed the letter and considered it not helpful for a school appeal. The officer said it was too detailed and she had not seen it before being issued. The officer agreed to send a revised, succinct letter confirming previous social work involvement. The officer posted the letter to Ms X first class as it was needed to meet the deadline for the appeal submission.
19. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaint’s procedure in April 2019. The Council accepted that in November 2018 Ms X did not receive a helpful response from MASH and her query about a letter of support was not fully resolved. The Council considered Ms X’s request for a supportive letter should have gone to a manager to respond to. A Complaints officer discussed the complaint with senior MASH managers. It accepted Ms X’s request could have been managed and responded to differently although it could not have sent a letter of support for a specific school. The Council apologised. It said it hoped the March 2019 letter helpful and helped Ms X secure a secondary school place for her child.
20. Ms X remained unhappy with the Council’s response. Ms X claimed the Council had neglected a duty of care towards her child and obstructed her attempts to safeguard her child. Ms X requested her complaint go to stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedure.
21. The Council considered and refused Ms X’s request to go to stage 2. It explained the Council rectified the error made over her original request and apologised. The Council said the letter Ms X previously requested would not have adversely affected the chosen education provision for her child. This was because Children’s Services cannot write a letter in support of any school applications. It also could not release any information about Mr Y due to not being the original data holder.

My assessment

22. The Council has explained it cannot provide Ms X with a letter of support for her child to attend a certain school when she was applying for secondary school places. But it could provide one explaining the previous involvement with Children’s services. So, I consider the Council’s failure to respond to provide Ms Y with an explanation of this or consider her letter further in November 2018 was fault. The Council has acknowledged fault in its response to Ms X’s request in November 2018 and that she did not receive a good service.
23. While I consider there has been fault by the Council in its response to Ms X’s request, I consider the injustice caused to Ms X has been limited. This is because the Council acknowledged its error. And provided a suitable letter in time for Ms X to pursue an appeal if she wished to do so about the school place offered for her child. The Council has also apologised to Ms X. I consider the letter in March 2019 and the apology is suitable action to remedy any injustice caused. Because of this I do not consider any further investigation will add to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome for Ms X.
24. If Ms X considers the Council has been negligent then this is a matter she will need to seek legal advice about and consider whether to pursue through the courts. This is because negligence is not an issue the Ombudsman determines.

Back to top

Final decision

25. I am completing my investigation. The Council was at fault in its response to Ms X’s request for a letter in November 2018. But the Council’s letter in March 2019 and apology is a suitable remedy in this case.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman