Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the involvement of the Council with the complainants’ children. This is because the substantive complaint is made late and there are no good reasons to exercise the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate it now. Other issues are previously decided or are out of jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. The complainants, who I refer to here as Mr and Mrs Q, say that the Council:
• Accused them of fabricating illness when they asked for assessments and support for their children;
• Delayed in providing assessments and support for their children;
• Holds inaccurate records about them, including on a Section 47 report, and has refused to resolve their concerns;
• Has refused to investigate properly these complaints, as well as others relating to Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision, the Secondary Transfer process, and the provision of Education Transport.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:

• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

6. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
7. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
8. SEND is a tribunal that considers special educational needs. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (‘SEND’))
9. The Courts have said that we cannot investigate a complaint about any action by a council, concerning a matter which is itself out of our jurisdiction. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered the information provided by Mr and Mrs Q, by the Council, and by their MP about two complaints, which I have amalgamated. I have also sent them a draft decision and then an updated draft for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

11. Mr and Mrs Q have two adopted children, who, they say, have multiple needs and disabilities. However, when they asked for support, assessments and diagnoses for the children, they say the children’s School and the Council responded with allegations of abuse and of fabricating illness. They believe that this was done with the intention of preventing them from asking for expensive interventions and assistance.
12. Mr and Mrs Q say this caused delay in providing the assessments and support needed for the children.
13. They further say that there have been other problems where the Council has not supported them adequately. These include issues relating to SEN provision, the provision of Educational Transport, and the Secondary Transfer process.
14. We will not investigate these complaints. This is because the issues complained of are from 2014-18 We cannot investigate complaints about matters that the complainant knew about more than 12 months previously, unless there is good reason to do so. I have seen no good reason in this case to investigate these matters now.
15. Although Mr and Mrs Q say that one of the incidents relates to late 2018, it is not a matter that has caused significant injustice and is does not warrant investigation in isolation from the substantive complaint.
16. Additionally, part of the complaint relates to the Council’s actions in relation to the actions of a school. This is out of our jurisdiction because the LGSCO is unable to consider the actions of the Council in relation to matters that are themselves out of our jurisdiction.
17. Another issue relating to SEN provision, was the subject of an appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. The Council’s actions in relation to this matter are also out of our jurisdiction.
18. Mr and Mrs Q further complain that the Council hold inaccurate records about them on a Section 47 report. I will not investigate this this part of the complaint because it has already been considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office.
19. Mr and Mrs Q also say that the Council has not investigated their complaints properly. We do not consider complaints about councils’ handling of their complaint procedure if we are not investigating the substantive matter. However as the reason the Council gave for not investigating these complaints is that they are made late, we would be unlikely to find fault with the decision.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because most of it is made late and there are no good reasons to investigate it now. Other issues are out of jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman