Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to communicate with the complainant properly in matters relating to her son’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because investigation would not achieve anything significant or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council has failed to communicate with her properly in matters relating to her son’s Education Health and Care (EHC) plan.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. Miss X’s son has special educational needs and an EHC plan. EHC plans must be the subject of regular reviews. Miss X complains that the Council has failed to communicate with her properly. Specifically, she complains that, in the course of the review process, the Council’s case officer failed to obtain appropriate reports and has provided her with information without giving her sufficient time to consider it.
6. In response to Miss X ‘s complaint, the Council has identified that it has failed to act on her request for email communication. It has undertaken to do so in future. It has apologised for instances of poor communication but does not agree that its communication and responses have been significantly flawed overall.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we would achieve nothing significant by doing so. The Council’s responses at Stages 1 and 2 of its corporate complaint procedure appear reasonable and further investigation by the Ombudsman would not be proportionate.
8. Even if we were to investigate and identify fault, we could not take a view on whether poor communication or matters such as the failure to obtain reports affected the process of reviewing Miss X’s son’s EHC plan. This is because the content of the EHC plan can be appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability), and it would be reasonable for Miss X to use her right to do so. Our intervention is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because investigation would not achieve anything significant or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman