Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s communication with her regarding an Education, Health and Care needs assessment of her child, Y. This is because Mrs X was not caused a significant injustice by the alleged fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s communication regarding an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child, Y.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused her frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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:

• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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. Mrs X asked the Council to complete an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment of her child, Y, in September 2023. Mrs X sent the Council several emails to request the matter be progressed promptly and asked the Council to consult with Y’s childminder.
7. The Council sent consultation letters to the childminder and Mrs X. Before Mrs X received her consultation letter by post, she sent the Council a digital form with her views. The childminder also sent a consultation response.
8. Mrs X then complained to the Council. She said the Council had failed to follow proper procedure in consulting with her and the childminder because it had not sent the consultation forms promptly. She said the Council had not given her or the childminder sufficient time to enable them to make their representations.
9. The Council decided five weeks after Mrs X’s original request to complete an EHC needs assessment of Y.
10. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint and told her it had completed the EHC needs assessment within the statutory timescales. It explained there was a shortage of Educational Psychologists and said this would likely result in a delay in completing the EHC needs assessment of Y in the future.
11. Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process. She told the Council her complaint was due to the lack of response to her original EHC needs assessment request, and about the lack of time offered to provide consultation responses. Mrs X told the Council she was working with a solicitor about delays in the EHC process and that this was not part of her complaint.
12. The Council wrote to Mrs X and told her it would not consider her complaint further as it had already responded to the main points she raised.
13. Mrs X then brought her complaint to us.

Analysis

14. We will not consider this complaint further. The Council had six weeks to decide whether to complete an EHC needs assessment of Y. It did so within five weeks. While Mrs X says the Council did not provide sufficient time for her to respond to the consultation and did not communicate effectively with her at the start of the process, both she and the childminder were able to provide their consultation responses within the statutory timescales in any event. Therefore, Mrs X was not caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she was not caused a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman