Westminster City Council (24 010 127)
Category : Education > Special educational needs
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 20 Nov 2024
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s actions when her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan was transferred to it from another Council’s area. This is because we are unlikely to find fault and any injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation at this stage.
The complaint
- Miss X said the Council did not do enough to secure provision for her son (Y), in line with his Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan, after she moved to the Council’s area. Miss X was also unhappy the Council had not reimbursed her for expense she had incurred and had not agreed a personal budget for the forthcoming year.
- Miss X said the Council’s actions have caused unnecessary stress and delayed provision for Y.
he Ombudsman’s role and powers
- The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
- 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
- any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Miss X and I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Y is a child who has an EHC Plan. In May 2024, Miss X and Y moved to the Council’s area and in early June, Authority A issued a final EHC Plan for Y and sent it to the Council. The EHC Plan did not name a placement but stated the type only.
- In late June, the Council offered home tuition support for Y as an interim measure, while it considered a suitable placement. In July, it sent Miss X a decision about Y’s EHC Plan and made arrangements to consult with providers to find a suitable placement.
- In late July, Miss X complained the Council had not yet secured a placement and had not reimbursed her expense for provision up until then. She also complained the Council had not agreed a personal budget for the following academic year. In August, the Council agreed to reimburse Miss X’s expenses and explained it would work with her to set a personal budget for the next year, while it tried to secure a placement.
- I have only considered Miss X’s complaint up until late August, and on the evidence I have seen, it is unlikely we would find fault in the Council’s initial actions, when Authority A transferred Y’s EHC Plan. The evidence shows it responded in the expected timescales and offered interim support, while it tried to secure a placement. It also agreed to reimburse Miss X’s expenditure when it considered her complaint.
- Additionally, any injustice to Miss X in the Council’s initial actions is not significant enough to warrant an investigation at this stage. For these reasons we will not investigate Miss X’s complaint.
- Miss X has raised her concerns about ongoing discussions relating to Y’s personal budget and what the Council are doing to meet his special educational needs at this point. We will not investigate the Council’s actions here, because these discussions are ongoing and there is no evidence the Council have considered a complaint about those matters.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman because it is unlikely we would find fault and there is no significant injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman