Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council dealt with her concerns that her child’s Special Educational Needs were not being met. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about how the Council dealt with her concerns about how her child’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision was being met. Miss X says the Council failed to provide a suitable financial remedy for the fault identified and unfairly warned her about her communications.

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
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(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

My assessment

5. Miss X’s son has an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan which outlines the SEN provision he must receive. Miss X complained to the Council that she had concerns that some therapeutic sessions were not taking place and that she had not been informed of the outcome of an assessment.
6. The Council said that Miss X had previously complained about possible missed therapeutic provision and it had been found that all provision was in place. It said to reassure Miss X that sessions were taking place and a card was placed in her child’s bag after each session.
7. In responding to her complaint, the Council asked Miss X not to make repeat complaints about the same issues and warned her that it may have to place restrictions on her contact if she continued to do so.
8. The Council did acknowledge that it had not sent Miss X the outcome of an assessment. It apologised and sent her a copy.
9. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how it has dealt with her concerns about her child’s SEN provision not being in place. It has made appropriate checks to ensure the provision is in place and has a system in place to allow Miss X to know when sessions have taken place.
10. Whilst Miss X is unhappy that the Council warned her about her contact, I will not investigate this element of her complaint because I do not consider that the warning has caused her a significant enough injustice to warrant our further involvement.
11. I will not investigate Miss X’s compliant that the Council delayed sending her an assessment. This is because the Council apologised for the delay and has now sent Miss X a copy. This is a proportionate response, and I do not consider that any further remedy is appropriate. For this reason, investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
12. Miss X complained about how the Council dealt with her complaint. However, it is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman