Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about alleged bias in how the Council awards contracts for alternative educational provision. There is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about bias in the Council’s decision making regarding its award of contracts for alternative educational provision. She says this has affected her business and caused financial loss.

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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, 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 is a provider of alternative educational provision and on the Council’s approved provider list. She says the Council’s decision-making when deciding which provider to award contracts to is biased against her and its failure to commission her service has affected her business and caused financial loss.
6. In its complaint responses, the Council explained that it follows a set process when deciding which providers to commission. It said it selects services which will best meet the needs of the child and help them achieve their identified outcomes. It also considers geographical location and, where two similar providers are in the same geographical area, which provider offers best value. It said all services were commissioned using this process to meet the needs of the child.
7. It accepted that information provided by an officer to a third party did not accurately reflect the terms of the approved provider contract. It apologised to Ms X for any frustration and distress caused by this. It said it had acted to improve its service by ensuring its officers were correctly informed and that the decision-making process was adequately explained to parents and providers and decisions were appropriately recorded.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. It is for the Council to decide which services it commissions to meet the needs of each child. Although Ms X states the Council’s commissioning is biased and this has led to her missing out on contracts, I have seen no evidence of this. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
9. The Council has accepted that an officer misrepresented the terms of the approved provider contract in a communication. It apologised to Ms X for any distress caused by this and has acted to improve its service moving forward. This is any appropriate response. An investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman