Privacy settings

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Luton Borough Council (17 018 642)

Category : Education > Special educational needs

Decision : Closed after initial enquiries

Decision date : 29 Mar 2018

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Ombudsman cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to refund to the complainant the cost of the legal representative he used in his SEN Tribunal appeal. This is because the matter has been considered by the Tribunal and is therefore out of our jurisdiction.

The complaint

  1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mr J, complains that the Council has refused to reimburse him for the cost of his legal representative for the appeal he made to the SEN Tribunal. He feels that the Council should do so as his appeal was upheld, and he says that the Council acted unreasonably in its defence of the appeal.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
  2. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
  1. SEND is a tribunal that considers special educational needs. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal (‘SEND’))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered the information provided by Mr J, and I sent him an initial view for his comments.

Back to top

What I found

  1. Mr J has a child who has Special Educational Needs which are met through an Education and Health Care Plan.
  2. Mr J was dissatisfied with the provision made by the Council in his son’s EHCP, and exercised his right to appeal to SENDIST.
  3. The Tribunal upheld Mr J’s appeal.
  4. Mr J is unhappy with the Council’s actions with regard to this appeal to SENDIST. He says that that it acted unreasonably in its defence of the appeal, and has made a detailed complaint about the actions of its officers leading up to and during the appeal hearing. He applied to the Tribunal for costs for his hearing on this basis.
  5. The Tribunal refused his application.
  6. Mr J has now complained about the Council’s actions to the Ombudsman, to support his request for the LGSCO to recommend reimbursement of his costs.
  7. We cannot consider this complaint or Mr J’s desired outcome. This is because the matter has already been considered by a Tribunal. All actions connected with it, whether or not considered by the Tribunal in making its decision, are out of our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Final decision

  1. I cannot investigate this complaint about the refusal to reimburse Mr J for his expenses incurred during his SENDIST hearing. This is because the matter has been considered by a Tribunal and is therefore out of our jurisdiction.

Investigator’s final decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page