Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council’s actions have led to her son missing school. This is because the education provision in place is not separable from Mrs X’s tribunal appeal. Other matters have not caused a significant enough injustice to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council has managed her son Y’s education provision. She says Y is out of school, his Education Health and Care (EHC) plan is out of date and the Council’s communication with her has been poor.

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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. I cannot investigate the provision in place for Y. Mrs X disagrees with the school named in Y’s EHC Plan and has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about this. The provision in place whist the appeal is being considered is not separable from the appeal itself.
8. The Council has recently arranged for a new Educational Psychologist assessment to be undertaken and has since arranged a review of Y’s EHC Plan. The outcome of the review will feed into the working document which will be considered at the upcoming SEND Tribunal hearing.
9. Whilst the Council has acknowledged that there was a delay in arranging the review, I do not consider that this has caused a significant injustice to Y or Mrs X. As that hearing has yet to be held and therefore the outcome would have been the same even if the review had taken place sooner. I will therefore not investigate the element of Mrs X’s complaint.
10. Finally, I will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s communication with her being poor. Any injustice caused by poor communication alone is not significant enough to justify investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the education provision for Y is not separable form her appeal to the SEND Tribunal and other matters have not caused a significant enough injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman