Summary: There was fault by the Council which was remedied during the Council’s complaints process. The Council apologised, made service improvements and ensured the educational provision was in place.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall call Mrs X, complains the Council has not carried out the recommendations it made in its response to an official complaint.
2. Mrs X also complains the Council did not provide funding for Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) from 1 September until 22 September and insufficiently funded the education until 25 November 2022. And, that the Council delayed funding a computer and a printer.
3. Mrs X says that this has affected her child’s education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I read the papers put in by Mrs X and discussed the complaint with her.
8. I considered the Council’s comments about the complaint and any supporting documents it provided.
9. Mrs X and the organisation 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

10. Mrs X complained to the Council about her child’s EOTAS provision. The Council responded to her official complaint in September 2023. Her complaints were upheld, the Council apologised and made a number of recommendations.

Official complaint recommendations

11. The Council made the following recommendations in its response to Mrs X’s official complaint:
• A letter of Apology. This was sent in December 2023.
• Consideration and decision made re unspent monies being used in school holidays. The Council agreed to this in December 2023.
• Level of communication between service and Mrs X agreed. The Council suggested in January 2024 that it would respond to her emails within 3-5 days and would arrange a monthly check in if she wanted this.
• Consideration of developing a framework to ensure consistency and transparency in relation to funding decisions. The Council has sent a copy of its personal budget guidance which has been updated.
• Managerial briefing to all staff regarding importance of timely and accurate recording in line with expected practice. The Council emailed the team in November 2023.
• Team manager to remind all staff about the importance of keeping families informed about their point of contact. The Council has provided evidence this happened in a team meeting.
12. I find no fault by the Council. It has carried out the recommendations made.

EOTAS funding

13. The Council has said it paid £2000 on 16th September and £6699 on 23 November 2022. The Council did fund the EOTAS package, but I can see there were some delays which were fault. I recognise Mrs X concerns that delays in funding could have meant that relationships with tutors were lost as they could not wait for funding. I also understand the Council needs to be able to approve the costs in the personal budget. The Council has said that it is not certain why the delays occurred.

Computer and printer

14. Mrs X complains that the Council disagreed with the complaint investigating officers findings on the failure to provide adequate support funding for the computer and printer. Mrs X has said her child was without a computer for almost a year and a printer for months.
15. The Council has said ‘£700 was provided to Mrs X to buy a laptop in 2021. In 2022 Mrs X requested £1900 for a MacBook. This was considered but I cannot see any information provided about the laptop bought in 2021 and the reason this no longer met needs. However, we accept that perhaps the laptop chosen by Mrs x did not provide speech to text software – we did not explore whether this software could be bought for the existing laptop. I cannot see any evidence that Mrs X’s child was without a computer for any period of time’.
16. The Council provided funding for a computer in the 2023/2024 budget.
17. I have looked at the proposal sent by Mrs X to the Council for the laptop. It does not explain why the existing laptop was not suitable. I can also see no evidence the Council asked Mrs X why the existing laptop was not suitable. The investigating officer said the reasons the laptop request was not approved in 2022 but approved in 2023 were unclear. Mrs X has explained to me that the original machine was a tablet, which was not a proper laptop.
18. On this point, the evidence is unclear and I cannot make a decision on whether there was fault or not. There is simply a lack of evidence to be able to make a balanced decision. Mrs X also complains her child was without a printer for months. The Council’s investigation upheld this complaint as it says that Mrs X’s request was ignored This was fault. Mrs X now has the funding for the printer.

Conclusion

19. There has been some fault by the Council which its response to Mrs X’s official complaint has not addressed. However, the Council has already put in place most of the remedy Mrs X proposed in her complaint to the Ombudsman. This was:
• Apology
• Improved communication protocol.
• Transparent funding guidelines with clear guidance on how funding decisions should be made.
• A specialist EOTAS team.
20. Mrs X also asked for a £1000 payment to mitigate the impact of delayed funding on her child’s education. Our guidance on remedies for education looks at the impact of fault on the child’s education. The Council provided with funds for the EOTAS package although I appreciate the initial funding was delayed and did not include the computer she specified for a year. Our usual remedy for loss of education would be between £900 to £2400 for a term’s loss of education. In this situation, where there has been a delay but the funding has then been provided I do not consider a payment of £1000 is warranted. I recognise Mrs X’s point that her child could have lost specific tutors due to the delay but I do not consider this injustice can be remedied by a symbolic payment.

Back to top

Final decision

21. I have completed my investigation of this complaint. This complaint is upheld and the remedy already proposed by the Council remedies the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman