Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to find a suitable educational setting for Ms X’s child after a placement ordered by a Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal failed. Investigation by us would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X said she had to go to a Tribunal to get a suitable educational setting for her child, but that she was given incorrect information about transition. She said the placement was unsuitable as it was too specialised, and it failed after a few weeks in May 2024. She said the Council then failed to arrange alternative provision for her child for the remainder of the school year.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
 

3. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X told me the Council has arranged a new placement for her child for September 2024. The placement that failed in May 2024 was decided by a Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal order in April 2024. I have seen a copy of this order.
7. We have already considered earlier matters in complaint 23 004 687. We cannot consider what educational provision should be made for a child in the period before the SEND Tribunal issued its decision. The time period in question is thus one of about half a term to July 2024.
8. We would normally expect a Council to offer alternative education within 15 school days. However, there are sometimes reasons why we cannot say, on the balance of probabilities, that a failure by a council to do that would have been more likely than not to cause loss of education.
9. The SEND Tribunal order notes that there was a risk of any given placement failing for the child because of a history of emotional-based school avoidance. For that reason, it noted the agreement between Ms X and the Council in advance of the hearing about where the placement should be, and it ordered a longer transition period. Although Ms X says the placement proved unsuitable and the transition was not carried out by the school as agreed, the SEND Tribunal’s comment about the child’s history is significant.
10. Added to that is the child’s emotional state, as reported by Ms X in her complaint to us. She described her child as traumatised, to the point of self-harming and attempting suicide. Thus, we would be unlikely to reach a robust view that the child, on the balance of probabilities, would have been able to engage with any potential educational offer in that period.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because doing so would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman