Summary: Mr X complained about being given wrong information about a residential education placement and about recording conversations with Council staff. We should not investigate because there is not enough outstanding injustice to warrant our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about wrong information provided by a Council officer while discussing potential education placements for his child who has special educational needs. He also said a Council officer was then wrong to tell him not to record telephone conversations. He said the Council only upheld his complaints verbally at a meeting held after the Council’s complaints procedure had ended. He said the wrong advice caused distress to both parents and their child and he did not consider the issue resolved as he had nothing in writing after the meeting.

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 the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information in Mr X’s complaint and listened to part of his recording of the telephone conversation with the Council officer.
4. Mr X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered his comments before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mr X’s child, C, has special educational needs. Mr and Mrs X and the Council discussed what educational placement would meet C’s needs.
6. One of the discussions included a long telephone conversation with a Council officer. I have listened to a recording of part of that conversation. The Council officer set out the main issues when deciding what placement would be most appropriate for C. One of the issues the officer raised was that, if C went to a residential school, C would automatically become a looked after child. The officer said this meant Mr and Mrs X would effectively pass their parental rights over to the Council.
7. This issue had not come up before during discussions about possible placements. Mr and Mrs X were very concerned and checked with the school in question. The school said pupils did not become looked after children just because they took up a residential school placement. Mr and Mrs X made further enquiries about the issue, including enquiries at the Council.
8. Mr and Mrs X told C what the officer had said about C becoming a looked after child if C took up a residential placement. Mr X said C was very distressed about the possibility of being taken away from Mr and Mrs X.
9. Ten days after the telephone conversation a Council officer confirmed in writing that C would not become a looked after child by taking up a residential school placement.
10. Mr and Mrs X had recorded the telephone conversation in question. The Council officer involved in the conversation later emailed to remind them they should not record conversations unless express consent had been given in exceptional circumstances. The officer said, in drawing up guidance about communication with parents, she was generally advising against the use of recordings.
11. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council about the wrong information provided in the telephone call and about being told not to record conversations. The Council investigated the complaint but did not listen to the recording of the conversation. During the investigation an officer confirmed to Mr and Mrs X they could record conversations with a Council officer without specific consent. The officer accepted they had been told otherwise and said she would raise the issue with the officer concerned and with senior management to ensure officers were correctly informed.
12. The Council’s final complaint response said information such as looked after status should have been put in writing. It apologised for the unintended consequence of the manner in which the information was shared which led
    Mr and Mrs X to share it with C, causing C considerable distress. It found the officer did not intend to mislead Mr and Mrs X. It said an officer had already confirmed the Council’s policy on recording telephone conversations.
13. Discussions about a suitable placement for C had continued and, as a result, C started at a new school. The school was not the residential placement referred to above. Mr and Mrs X were satisfied the new school was a good fit for C.
14. After the Council’s complaints decision a senior officer and complaints officer visited Mr and Mrs X at home. They listened to the recording of the telephone conversation. Mr and Mrs X say the officers agreed they had been misinformed. After the meeting the senior officer wrote to Mr and Mrs X. The officer said only Mr and Mrs X could assess whether talking things through gave them the redress and closure they were seeking. The officer said he was sorry for their experiences.

Analysis

15. A Council officer gave Mr and Mrs X wrong information and the information caused them immediate shock and distress. However, the situation was clarified within the next ten days and did not affect C’s ultimate placement elsewhere. There is not enough outstanding injustice to warrant us investigating this any further.
16. A Council officer gave Mr and Mrs X wrong information about its policy on recording conversations. This caused Mr and Mrs X some concern. However, through the complaints procedure the Council confirmed the correct situation, that parents could record conversations without specific agreement beforehand. There is not enough outstanding injustice to warrant us investigating this any further.

Back to top

Final decision

17. There is not enough outstanding injustice to warrant investigation of this complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman