Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs B’s complaint the Council refuses to change the allocated Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) Co-ordinator for her daughter. This is because the Council has acted to resolve the substantive issues in the complaint, apologised for some fault, and taken steps to prevent a recurrence. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council otherwise which would warrant the Ombudsman investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains the Council refuses to change the allocated Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) Co-ordinator for her daughter despite her complaints, support from daughter’s school, and the provisions of the Special Educational Needs (SEN) Code of Practice promoting greater parental control over provision.
2. Mrs B says the current Co-ordinator’s conduct has left her without confidence in her professional competence, and she does not wish to expose her daughter to further distress and discrimination by the Co-ordinator. She wants the Council to change the allocated member of staff.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘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, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered what Mrs B said in her complaint, the information she sent to support it, and the Council’s response to her complaint. I have also given Mrs B an opportunity to comment on or discuss with me a draft before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. In late 2019 and early 2020 the Council was reviewing Mrs B’s daughter’s EHCP, and its allocated Co-ordinator, Ms G, was responsible for progressing the work. The Council issued a final EHCP two days or so before receiving comments on the draft EHCP from Mrs B and her daughter’s school. Mrs B complained, but the Council was able to resolve the substance of her complaint about the content of the EHCP. I do not need to consider that part of her complaint further.
6. The Council also accepted it should not have issued the final EHCP to meet a statutory time scale without Mrs B’s or the school’s comments, and it apologised. In its response to Mrs B’s complaint it said Ms G was less experienced and had made a mistake which further training, supervision and coaching would prevent in future. As the substance of the matter was resolved quickly, the action the Council has taken to apologise and enable Ms G to learn from what happened is a proportionate response. The Ombudsman would not achieve more than that by investigating.
7. Mrs B complained, however, about Ms G’s conduct, which she said was discriminatory and lacked competence. She provided information from her daughter's school which suggested the school SEN co-ordinator (SENCO) had undertaken administration of meetings which Ms G should have done, and Ms G had provided wrong information about reasons for delay and failed to respond to various contacts from the SENCO during the review process.
8. The Council has already accepted the need to supervise Ms G’s work as she gains experience. The basis of Mrs B’s complaints that Ms G’s actions were discriminatory is not clear; Mrs B has not explained how Ms G’s actions treated her daughter less favourably or what protected characteristic of hers was the source of any less favourable treatment. Without more, there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council here to warrant the Ombudsman investigating.
9. The Council said it was satisfied the management and supervision arrangements it had in place were enough, and it refused to change the allocated Co-ordinator as Mrs B had asked. By law the Ombudsman has no power to investigate personnel matters, and that includes not being able to direct or make recommendations to the Council on its deployment of staff. Moreover, it is not reasonable for any person to expect a council or any other organisation to allocate to their case its most experienced staff; if that were so there would be no possibility of newer staff gaining skills and experience or of staff development and progression.

Back to top

Final decision

10. Subject to any comments Mrs B might make, my view is the Ombudsman should not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has acted to resolve the substantive issues in it, apologised for some fault, and taken steps to prevent a recurrence. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council otherwise which would warrant the Ombudsman investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman