Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a safeguarding matter because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council:
• Delayed making a safeguarding referral about a third party, raised unfounded allegations within the referral and, failed to inform him of the referral at the outset;
• Failed to disclose details of the referral during judicial review proceedings;
• Failed to pay for his child’s tuition, due under their Education Health and Care Plan (“EHC Plan”);
• Failed to handle his complaint in accordance with the statutory children’s complaints process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended)
3. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
4. 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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The threshold for a safeguarding referral was not met. Therefore any delay in progressing the referral, any dispute over the merit of the allegations or, any failure to inform Mr X of the referral did not cause significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.
8. Mr X filed a judicial review claim about the Council’s decision to stop paying for his child’s tuition. This court action, any complaint the Council failed to provide information during court proceedings and Mr X’s request that the Council pay his legal costs are all outside of our jurisdiction. I cannot investigate what happened in court and I cannot investigate a complaint that has already been taken to court.
9. Complaints about the safeguarding process and complaints about EHC Plans are not matters the Council must address under the statutory children’s complaints process. There is not enough evidence of fault to investigate.
10. It is not proportionate to investigate general complaints about the Council’s complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive issues. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman