Summary: Mx B complained the Council failed to take actions agreed in September 2022 following an earlier complaint. Also, that it failed to make reasonable adjustments to meet their needs as a disabled person. We discontinued our investigation because the Council offered to review its earlier findings on these matters, subject to Mx B clarifying if they remained dissatisfied and the reasons for this.

The complaint

1. I have called the complainant ‘Mx B’. They complain the Council has failed to complete several actions agreed in September 2022, following a complaint they made about how the Council carried out an education, health and social care needs assessment for their child ‘Y’. Mx B also complains about the Council’s communications with them. They say the Council has not provided them with reasonable adjustments needed because of a disability.
2. Mx B wants the Council to complete the actions it agreed and address the education provision Y has missed, which they say follows from the failure to complete assessments agreed in September 2022. They also want the Council to provide them with a new case worker and make necessary reasonable adjustments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide it would be reasonable for the person to ask for a review or appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. Before issuing this decision statement I considered Mx B’s written submissions to the Ombudsman. I also gathered information from the Council which consisted of its correspondence with Mx B from September 2022 onward.
5. I also gave Mx B and the Council opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments received before issuing this final version.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

6. If the Council receives a complaint about its administration of special educational needs provision, then it will usually consider that via its corporate complaints procedure. This has three stages. If, at the end of the third stage, a complainant remains dissatisfied with the Council’s reply then they can make a complaint to this office and we will consider investigating.
7. In 2022 Mx B used this procedure to make a complaint about how the Council carried out an assessment of education, health and care needs for their child ‘Y’. The Council completed its consideration of this complaint in September 2022 following a review which formed the third stage of the complaint procedure.
8. In brief, the Stage 3 review overturned earlier findings and upheld Mx B’s complaint. The Council recognised it had not followed the law and Government guidance when it came to seeking specialist information and advice as part of its assessment of Y’s needs. The Council agreed that it would now seek specialist information and advice. It apologised to Mx B and offered a symbolic payment to recognise its failure.
9. Another part of the Council’s reply offered an apology to Mx B for their experience in making the complaint and recognised the Council had not met their needs. It said the Council would, moving forward, aim to provide Mx B with “consistent support from familiar workers”. It offered a further symbolic payment to Mx B in recognition of its poor customer service.
10. In February 2023 Mx B contacted this office. They told us the Council had failed to take the actions agreed as summarised in paragraphs 7 and 8. Understanding this was a continuation of the same complaint answered by the Council in September 2022 we agreed to investigate.
11. In March 2023 the Council updated us on its communications with Mx B. These showed that in January 2023 Mx B had contacted the Council directly to express dissatisfaction with its failure to carry out actions agreed in September 2022. Their complaint also said the Council had failed to make reasonable adjustments needed because of disability. The Council had registered this as a second complaint.
12. At the end of March 2023 the Council sent Mx B its reply to that second complaint at Stage 2 of its corporate complaint procedure. It separated Mx B’s complaint into eight sub-headings and provided a response on each. It also went through each of Mx B’s desired outcomes. The Council offered to remedy the complaint through taking further action and making a further symbolic payment to Mx B. It said Mx B could ask for a review at Stage 3 of the corporate complaint procedure if they remained dissatisfied.
13. Subsequently, the Council received contact from Mx B, although this did not trigger a Stage 3 review. Mx B’s contact centred around a telephone call they had with an officer while the complaint was outstanding at Stage 1 of the procedure . Mx B’s said the Council sought, at that time, to stop it escalating to Stage 2. Also, they commented on the time taken to send the Stage 2 response, which was two weeks later than originally promised.
14. The Council wrote to Mx B with clarification on these points. But it did not consider they went to the heart of the matters set out in the Stage 2 report nor would impact on its findings. It therefore declined at that stage to review Mx B’s complaint under Stage 3 of the corporate procedure. But it indicated a continue willingness to do so if Mx B remained dissatisfied with the content of the Stage 2 report, or the actions it proposed to take in that report.

My findings

15. I have used my discretion to discontinue our investigation of Mx B’s complaint.
16. This is because Mx B can ask the Council to carry out a review at Stage 3 of its corporate complaint procedure if they are unhappy with the findings of the Stage 2 report.
17. I consider it would not be an effective or efficient use of the Ombudsman’s resources to carry out an investigation while this choice is available to Mx B. The Council’s review of Mx B’s earlier complaint showed this can provide a form of redress. Because on that occasion the Council overturned findings made at Stage 2 of the procedure and offered a remedy to Mx B.
18. I pass no comment on the fairness of that remedy as it is something that Mx B could still ask us to investigate. It would also be inappropriate for me to comment on the offer to remedy Mx B’s latest complaint made at Stage 2 of the procedure. The key consideration for me is that a Stage 3 review has the potential to provide a remedy that is satisfactory to Mx B.
19. Taking this decision does not prevent Mx B reverting to this office and asking us to investigate if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of the Stage 3 review. Or, if after considering Mx B’s detailed comments on the Stage 2 outcome, the Council declines to review its findings.
20. Any such future investigation of the complaint could also consider the functioning of the Council’s complaint procedure. For example, the timing of the Council’s decision to register it at Stage 2 or the length of time the Stage 2 investigation took. But it would not be an efficient or effective use of our resources to consider these matters in isolation from any wider complaint Mx B has around the substance of the complaint. Especially as the Council has provided Mx B with its further comments on these points.

Back to top

Final decision

21. For reasons set out above I have ended my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman