Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint about the educational provision made for the complainant’s son. This is because it is unlikely he would find fault by the Council in the arrangements it made with the complainant for her son’s education, and it has offered an appropriate remedy for other agreed faults.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to here as Mrs Y, says that the Council:

• Failed to provide her son with a suitable education;
• Forced her to home-educate her son as no other suitable educational provision was available;
• Has refused to refund some of the costs of the provision she arranged for her son;
• Has refused to compensate her son for not making suitable provision for him.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 Council has offered a remedy.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I read what Ms Y has told us about her complaint and the information provided by the Council. I also invited Ms Y to comment on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

What happened

4. Ms Y’s son had been attending a special needs school. Ms Y felt the school was not meeting his needs. In May 2018 Ms Y told the Council she had decided to take full responsibility for her son’s education and wanted to maintain his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). The Council said it noted her intention to electively home educate her son and his placement at the school remained available until it had checked the home education arrangements were suitable.
5. The Council was satisfied with the arrangements. At the EHCP annual review in July 2018 it was agreed Ms Y would submit a personal budget proposal to the Council for its consideration. In response to her proposal, the Council told Ms Y that as her son would be registered as home educated and have a personal budget, she would effectively be responsible for his education. It agreed to fund her son’s placement at an outdoor school one day a week.
6. In February 2019 Ms Y made a request for funding for a sports coach and a Communication Support Worker (CSW). The Council declined, this request.
7. In July 2019 Ms Y complained to the Council about the lack of education her son had received in 2018/2019. She said the Council had failed to provide him with a full- time education.
8. In its final response the Council said:

• Ms Y’s son was electively home educated. It did not have an obligation to make educational provision for him. It had allowed a discretionary personal budget and agreed to fund one day a week at an outdoor school.
• It had not agreed to Ms Y personally engaging a CSW. It would not refund the cost of this.
• It accepted it had not made it clear that personal budget requests could only be agreed through an annual review. It offered £250 to remedy the impact of the poor communication about this.
• It accepted it had not provided the Cued Speech Therapy as specified in the EHCP. It offered £1,740 to remedy this.
• It accepted there had been a delay in amending the EHCP following the annual review. It offered £250 to remedy the impact of this on Ms Y and her son.

Assessment

9. I understand Ms Y’s concern that the special needs school was not meeting her son’s needs. But it was her decision to withdraw him from the school and tell the Council she was taking full responsibility for providing his education. The Council made it clear Ms Y’s son would be registered as home educated, with a discretionary personal budget, on the basis she, and not the Council, would be responsible for his education. So there has been no failure by the Council to make educational provision for Ms Y’s son.
10. If Ms Y was unhappy with the school named on her son’s EHCP she had the option of asking for this to be reviewed and the placement changed. Ms Y could then have appealed to the SEND Tribunal had the Council refused her request.
11. The personal budget for Ms Y’s son was discretionary. The Council was not obliged to agree Ms Y’s personal budget proposals. It considered her request for funding for a CSW. There was no fault by the Council in deciding not to agree the request or refund the cost Ms Y had incurred engaging a CSW.
12. Although not raised by Ms Y in her complaint, the Council accepted it had been at fault in its communication about the timing of personal budget requests and a delay in completing the amended EHCP. It has offered payments totalling £500 to remedy the impact of these faults. I consider this represents a satisfactory response.
13. The Council also identified its fault in not providing cued speech therapy as specified in the EHCP. It offered £1,740 to remedy this. I consider this represents a satisfactory response.

Back to top

Final decision

14. I will not investigate this complaint. This is because it is unlikely we would find fault by the Council in the arrangements it made with Ms Y for her son’s education, and it has offered an appropriate remedy for other agreed faults.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman