Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s action in respect of the complainant’s son’s special educational needs and its response to her subsequent complaint. This is because investigation by the Ombudsman would achieve nothing significant.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will refer to as Miss X, complains that the Council failed to take prompt action in respect of her son’s special educational needs, the review of his Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and the provision of school transport. She further complaints that it was at fault in its response to her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X’s son has special educational needs and an EHCP. Miss X complained to the Council about delay in assessing her son for specific provision, failure to notify her about a change of officer responsibilities and delay in the process of amending the EHCP after the annual review. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint at Stage 1 of its complaint procedure and apologised for the fault she had identified.
6. Miss X says there were subsequent issues, including delay and failures in communication. Specifically, she complains that the Council’s ongoing failure caused her to have to arrange school transport for her son. She therefore chose to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 of the complaint procedure.
7. At Stage 2, the Council upheld the Stage1 findings. If took the view that the further matters Miss X had identified did not warrant a finding of fault.
8. Miss X is unhappy with the outcome of Stage 2, She believes the officer who considered the complaint should have given her the opportunity to have further input before making a decision. She wants recognition of the lengths she had to go to in order to ensure the correct provision for her son.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint because investigation would not achieve anything significant. Miss X’s Stage 1 complaint was upheld in full. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate upheld complaints because there is unlikely to be anything significant for us to add. That is the case here.
10. I understand that Miss X disagrees with the Stage 2 outcome. But I note that the amended EHCP was issued in time for her son to attend his new school. The Council denies Miss X’s contention that it was at fault in failing to ensure school transport was in place. Miss X disagrees. Given that transport was arranged in time, the difference of views on this point does not, in itself, justify the Ombudsman’s intervention.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman