Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the delivery of provision in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council. An investigation would be unlikely to add anything to the response Mrs X has already received or achieve a worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complained about changes to the way provision in her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) was delivered. Mrs X says the changes meant her son could no longer access education and his progress was negatively affected. Mrs X wants an apology, the changes explaining and a financial remedy.

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
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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

What I found

Background

5. Mrs X’s child (Y) has an EHC Plan. At the start of 2023 Y was receiving education from a provider (the Provider) arranged by the Council. The Provider delivers education to students unable to attend school.
6. Mrs X complained to the Council about changes made by the Provider to her son’s education. The Provider had introduced a new teacher to work with Y. Mrs X said the Provider had ignored her wishes and its communications had been poor.
7. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It said records showed communications from the Provider had always been professional and courteous. In the Council’s view an appropriate education offer was made for Y. Because of the package of support Mrs X wanted, it was necessary to introduce a second teacher who was suitably qualified. The first teacher remained Y’s point of contact and his “constant and trusted adult”. The Council said the Provider wanted to “make any changes in a planned, gradual way and to always to seek to minimise concerns for Y.” Because of Mrs X’s concerns about introducing a second teacher it was decided during Y’s annual refer to halt the Provider’s service. The Council sad “professionals did consider your guidance and wishes, but came to a different and professionally informed conclusion,”

Assessment

8. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
9. Where a child has an EHC Plan the Council’s role is to ensure the provision in the Plan is delivered. The Council arranged for the Provider to do this. At the heart of Mrs X’s complaint is a disagreement about how the provision in Y’s EHC Plan should have been delivered.
10. We will not therefore start an investigation into Mrs X’s complaint. Ultimately, Mrs X disagrees with the professional judgement of the Council and its provider about what was the best way to deliver the content of her son’s EHC Plan. The Council has explained the rationale for the approach taken and it found no fault with its provider’s actions. These are conclusions the Council is entitled to make, and it has done so without evidence of fault. The Ombudsman will not intervene to criticise its professional judgement or to substitute an alternative view. If we investigated, it is unlikely we could add anything to the Council’s response. Y’s EHC Plan has since been updated and in the absence of enough evidence of fault there is no worthwhile outcome we could now achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault. An investigation would not achieve a worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman