Summary: We stopped investigating Ms X’s complaint about a council failing to meet her daughter Y’s educational needs because it is reasonable for her to raise the issues during court proceedings.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained about Hertfordshire County Council (the Council). She said it ignored her daughter Y’s educational and medical needs and refused to deal with her complaint as there were private family law proceedings between her and Y’s father.
2. Ms X said this caused avoidable distress and denied Y access to provision and compromised her progress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. We have the power to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been, raised within a court of law. We may also decide not to continue with an investigation if there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered Ms X’s complaint to the Council and its response, her complaint to us and information from the Council. A colleague discussed the complaint with Ms X.
5. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

6. Ms X has moved into a different area since her complaint. There are ongoing private law family proceedings between Ms X and Y's father. The Council has provided reports for the court. Y had a child protection plan when the family lived in Hertfordshire.
7. Ms X complained to the Council in October 2021. She said a team manager in the children’s social care team was negligent, unfairly critical and there was ‘negligence of special educational needs.’ The Council asked her for more information about her complaint and Ms X said she was complaining the team manager ignored her concerns about Y having special educational needs.
8. Ms X told us she raised concerns with Y’s school when Y was in Year One in 2019. She told us she had asked the Council for an assessment of Y’s special educational needs and that ‘experts recommended an assessment for Autistic Spectrum Disorder.’ She said the Council promised some psychological help, but then went back on its promise.
9. The team manager said in an internal email to the Council’s complaints team that Y had support in place at school and this was reviewed at core group meetings and at child protection conferences. The team manager went on to say that Ms X had lots of parenting support and there were sometimes differences of opinion between Ms X and school because schools were not seeing the behaviours Ms X described.
10. The Council’s complaint response said it would not accept Ms X’s complaint because the matters she was raising were the subject of court proceedings which she was a party to.
11. The Council told me:
• Ms X and Y’s father were parties in private family law proceedings and the court had directed the Council to complete section 7 reports. (Section 7 reports consider welfare issues like where a child should live, contact, the child’s wishes and feelings, the home conditions and whether the child’s emotional, physical and educational needs are being met)
• The SEN service had not received any request from Ms X for an Education Health and Care needs assessment.
• The Council never agreed to provide or fund psychology

Back to top

Final decision

12. There are no grounds for me to continue investigating this complaint because:
• Y’s educational needs can reasonably be addressed by the court through the family law proceedings and the court will consider the reports it has ordered the Council to provide.
• The Council has confirmed it has no record of any request from Ms X for an assessment of Y’s special educational needs. So there is not enough evidence of fault.
• It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, including about how a council has responded to a complaint, if we cannot deal with the substantive issue.
13. Complaints about a failure to address a health need or provide psychology are not within our remit as they are health matters and Ms X needs to use the NHS complaints procedure.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman