Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s communication with the complainant in the period following her child’s exclusion from school. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council failed to communicate with her appropriately in the period following her child’s permanent 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 and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X’s complaint concerns the period following her son’s permanent exclusion from school. She says her son has an Education Health and Care plan. Miss X complains that the Council failed to respond to repeated contacts from her about his education following the exclusion. She says the Council failed to respond for two weeks and that this had a negative impact on her health and mental wellbeing.
6. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council accepted that it had been at fault. It attributed the failures in communication to staff absence. It apologised, appointed a new co-ordinator to manage Miss X’s son’s case, and offered Miss X a symbolic payment of £250. Miss X does not believe this recognises the severity of the impact of the Council’s failure on her.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it has already been upheld. We do not normally investigate complaints which have been upheld. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. That is the case here. The Council’s response to the complaint is reasonable and proportionate and the symbolic payment is appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman’s intervention would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Miss X’s case because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman