Summary: We will not investigate this complaint the Council did not arrange provision as specified in an Education Health and Care plan. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained on behalf of a relative, Ms X. He said the Council did not arrange the provision as specified in Ms X’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. He said she did not receive one-to-one support as specified in the plan and that class sizes were too large for her. He said despite raising these issues with the Council it did not take appropriate action. He said because of this, Ms X had to withdraw from her course with the Provider. He wants the Council to financially audit the Provider with respect to how it spent the funds awarded for Ms X’s special educational needs.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Following Mr X’s complaint, the Council contacted the Provider. It confirmed it had been in contact with Ms X about difficulties she was having with attendance and that she was exploring the possibility of different courses. It said there was additional support available to Ms X in class. The Provider confirmed Ms X had also accessed counselling and support from staff at the start of the day.
6. The Council did not uphold Mr X’s complaint. It said it was satisfied the Provider had supported Ms X appropriately. It said if the Provider needed additional funding, it could request it.
7. Although Mr Y disagrees with the Council’s response, we will not investigate. The Council has a statutory duty to provide the provision as set out in Section F of the EHC plan. Ms X’s EHC plan says “she will have regular access to at least one adult”; it does not specify she requires one-to-one support in class. The EHC plan also does not specify a class size. Therefore, there is nothing to suggest Ms X did not receive provision as specified in her EHC plan. I am satisfied the support outlined in the Provider’s response was in keeping with the EHC plan. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
8. In addition, Mr Y wants the Council to audit how the Provider spent money allocated for Ms X’s provision. That is not a recommendation we would propose. Ms X has also chosen to continue her education elsewhere. Therefore, there is nothing worthwhile to be achieved through further investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman