Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to change the alternative educational provision it makes for the complainant’s son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains that the Council has unreasonably decided to change her son’s alternative educational provision.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. The Council makes alternative educational provision for Ms X’s son under the duty set out in section 19 of the Education Act 1996. Ms X’s complaint concerns the Council’s decision to change her son’s provision and provider from February 2025.
6. Ms X says the Council’s decision was made without proper consideration of her son’s specific needs and without consultation. She says the proposed arrangements are not suitable for her son and the Council’s decision is therefore flawed.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention. The Council accepts that the section 19 duty is engaged. How it discharges that duty is a matter for the professional judgement of its officers.
8. In its final response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council sets out the reasons for its decision. It explains why it believes the current arrangements do not constitute the best way to discharge its section 19 duty, and why it regards the proposed arrangements as more appropriate for her son. Ms X does not accept the Council’s view and disagrees with the decision to change her son’s provision. But that does not mean they amount to fault.
9. The Council’s complaint response properly sets out its position, which appears reasonable and defensible in the circumstances of the case. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council’s officers made the decision to change Ms X’s son’s provision. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise their professional judgment or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Investigation is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman