Summary: there is no fault in the Council’s decision to remove the tutor assigned to Ms G’s grandson. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

The complaint

1. Ms G complains the Council removed a tutor assigned to her grandson, B, because the tutor sent him a gift. Ms G says the Council based its decision on inaccurate information. She says the decision to remove the tutor has caused B ‘personal injury’.

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 have considered information provided by Ms G and the Council. I invited Ms G and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms G’s grandson, B, has an education, health and care (EHC) plan maintained by the Council. He had a personal budget which his mother used to pay for a tutor.
6. In November 2023, B’s circumstances meant the tutor was no longer involved and the Council was not directly responsible for B’s education. I have not included the details here to protect B’s privacy.
7. At Christmas 2023, the tutor sent B a Christmas card and a gift of £20 in cash.
8. There appears to be a disagreement about whether the tutor sent the card directly to B or whether he sent it to B’s mother for her to send on. For my investigation, it makes no difference.
9. A worker supporting B thought the tutor’s actions were inappropriate and made a referral to the Council’s LADO. The LADO is an officer responsible for overseeing allegations or concerns about adults who work with children.
10. The LADO decided there was no need to follow safeguarding procedures, but the Council should consider the matter through disciplinary procedures.
11. The Council decided the tutor’s actions were inappropriate and he should no longer work with B. The Council stopped the direct payments.
12. Ms G says B had a very good relationship with the tutor. She speaks very highly of his skills and the progress B made when working with him. She says the decision to end contact has had a significant impact on B.
13. Ms G complained to the Council. The Council explained why it decided it would not be appropriate for the tutor to work with B. Again, I have not included the details here to protect B’s privacy.
14. Ms G disagrees with the Council’s decision. She does not consider the tutor’s actions caused B any harm, and she believes the negative impact on B of removing the tutor outweighs any fault by the tutor.
15. The Ombudsman is not an appeal. We do not decide whether the decision is right or wrong. We look at the way the Council made the decision.
16. There are no minutes of the meeting where the Council made the decision, but the Council has provided clear reasons. Ms G does not agree with the reasons, but that does not mean they are wrong.
17. The Council explained why it decided it was inappropriate for a tutor to send a gift to a pupil and to B in particular. There is no fault in the Council’s decision. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.
18. Ms G says the tutor has been approved by the Council to work with other young people. She believes this shows the Council’s decision to be unfair on B. There is no fault in the Council’s decision the tutor cannot work with. I have not considered other children.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I have ended my investigation. There is no fault in the Council’s decision to remove the tutor assigned to Ms G’s grandson. The Ombudsman cannot question decisions taken without fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman