Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council failing to provide alternative provision for a child who was not in school. The Council has already proposed a suitable remedy.

The complaint

1. Mrs X child has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mrs X complains the Council’s delays and maladministration resulted in her child being out of education a year, and the Council failed to provide alternative provision in that time. She says this impacted her child’s physical and mental wellbeing. Mrs X wants the Council to apologise, and for the Council to review what went wrong.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended
4. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X complained to the Council. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint and upheld that it had caused delay, which led to her child being out of education for around a year.
8. The Council has apologised to Mrs X and identified how it could do better. The Council has told Mrs X what action it will be taking to improve its services. The Council has also offered financial compensation for its faults. The compensation offered is in line with the range of remedy the Ombudsman would recommend. There is now a plan in place for Mrs X’s child to receive education at a specialist school. We will not investigate this complaint further because we are unlikely to achieve more for Mrs X.
9. Mrs X wants the Council to apologise for the quality of support her child received at their previous school. The SEN panel considering her child’s case concluded the school had done everything it could for her child. So, we are unlikely to find fault if we were to investigate.
10. The Council’s apology may not cover all the areas Mrs X believes she and her child are owed, but it is not proportionate for us to investigate further when the substantive complaint has already been remedied.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we are unlikely to achieve anything more for Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman