Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide her child with an iPad, despite their Education, Health and Care Plan stating they should receive assisted technology. We do not find fault with the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has not provided her child, Y, with an iPad, despite their Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan stating they should receive assistive technology. Ms X says this has prevented Y from accessing education, as the alternative suggested by the Council is unsuitable. Ms X would like the Council to provide Y with an iPad.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint and considered information she provided. I also considered information received from the Council.
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

Relevant law and policy

6. A child or young person with special educational needs (SEN) may have an EHC Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the tribunal or the council can do this. 
7. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 

8. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act).

What happened

9. Y was issued with an EHC Plan. Section F of this plan stated Y needed assistive technology such as a touch screen, stylus and speech to text software. It also states ‘…if [Y] is offered a touch screen device then this should use the similar operating system to the one which [Y] already uses. [Y] has mostly worked on an iPad during [their] primary schooling and this is [their] preferred operating system.” This was because, due to their medical needs, Y needed changes and transitions to be minimised.
10. The Council says it considered its duty to provide an adequate and reasonably required provision alongside the efficient use of resources. Its view was a standard touch screen device would be suitable. Based on this, the Council says it researched the cost of an average stylus and tablet, and then provided Ms X with £200 to buy these.
11. Ms X strongly feels that Y needs an iPad to enable them to access their education. She says that Y is familiar with the operating system and specific apps only available on this platform. Because of Y’s medical diagnosis, change and transitions can be difficult, so Ms X feels the change in assistive technology has prevented Y from engaging fully with their education.
12. In her complaint to the Council Ms X outlined the views of Y’s SEN tutor, who explained that, because of Y’s needs, they specifically needed an iPad.
13. The Council says it considered these views. However, it states the EHC Plan did not specify a brand, only that Y receive similar assistive technology, and it considers an alternative tablet suitable.

Analysis

14. We can only enforce provision based on an ordinary interpretation of the wording in an EHC Plan. Where wording is vague it is not for us to speculate about what may have been intended, the remedy is to appeal to the Tribunal to re-write the Plan and properly specify and quantify provision. In this case, an ordinary interpretation of the wording of the plan suggests that any assistive technology provided to Y should have related characters and properties to the iPad they were used to using, without having to be identical.
15. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
16. In making its decision, the Council took account of its statutory duty and Y’s EHC Plan. Whilst this does refer to Y using an iPad, it does not stipulate this is what the Council should provide. It states a ‘similar’ form of assisted technology is required, which is what the Council has provided a budget for.
17. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

18. I do not find the Council at fault and have completed my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman