Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council refused to consider a complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. Complaints about how the Council has responded to a Freedom of Information request is better dealt with by the Information commissioner and we cannot investigate matters previously considered by the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Mr X, complains that the Council has failed to properly manage his daughter’s Education Health and Care (EHC) plan, has failed to properly deal with his complaints, including one made about senior financial officers, and has failed to properly deal with his Freedom of Information (FoI) requests.

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 impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Information Commissioner's Office considers complaints about freedom of information. Its decision notices may be appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Information Rights). So where we receive complaints about freedom of information, we normally consider it reasonable to expect the person to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. We have previously considered a complaint from Mr X about how the Council had dealt with his complaints. We found that Mr X had not fully explained his complaint and not engaged with the complaints process and that there was therefore no fault in its decision not to progress his complaints.
7. Mr X again complained to the Council more recently about how it dealt with matters relating to his daughters Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. The Council allocated Mr X’s complaint to an investigator who made contact with Mr X to try to discuss his complaint further to gain an understanding of his complaint. Correspondence was sent to Mr X suggesting dates to meet with the investigator and asking him for a response. However, as no response was received from Mr X, the Council closed his complaint.
8. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with his complaint about matters relating to his daughter’s SEN provision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of faut by the Council. I would not criticise the Council for closing Mr X’s complaint, after he failed to engage with the process.
9. I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to respond to his FoI requests. This is because this matter would be best dealt with by the Information Commissioner.
10. Finally, I will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the actions of senior financial officers. This is because this matter was dealt with by the Ombudsman in 2018 and again addressed in a decision issued in September 2020.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to close his complaint and the Information Commissioner is better placed to deal with his complaint about how the Council dealt with his FoI request.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman