Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make suitable alternative educational provision for the complainant’s son. This is because the complaint has already been upheld and investigation would not add anything significant or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Ms X, complains that the Council has failed to make suitable alternative educational provision for her son since his exclusion from school.

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:

• 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X’s son was permanently excluded from school in March 2024. She complains that the Council failed in its duty to make alternative provision for him under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996. She says the Council’s failure to make the necessary provision has deprived her son of education to which he was entitled, and that he remains unable to attend school.
6. While Ms X’s son has been out of school, the Council has issued him with an Education Health and Care Plan. Ms X says the Council has failed to deliver the provisions set out in the Plan.
7. The Council has upheld Ms X’s complaint. It says it delayed making any provision for her son and, when it did so, only provided 10 hours per week between March and July 2024. It has apologised for the fault on its part and set out service improvements it has implemented or plans to implement. It has also offered symbolic payments to recognise the loss of provision between March and July 2024, and Ms X’s time and trouble in raising the complaint.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. Where a complaint has already been upheld, we will not normally intervene. The key question for us in such cases is whether investigation is likely to achieve anything substantial or lead to a different outcome. That is not the case here.
9. Ms X complained to the Council in July 2024, and the Council’s complaint response relates to the period March to July. That being the case, the period we have considered is the same. If Ms X is unhappy about subsequent matters, she may complain to the Council in the first instance. The symbolic financial settlement the Council has offered is broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would be likely to recommend in the circumstances of the case. Investigation would not therefore achieve a substantially different outcome. So, our intervention is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because investigation would not achieve anything significant or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman