Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed making educational provision for the complainant’s son. The complaint has been upheld and the Ombudsman’s intervention is unlikely to lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council delayed making educational provision for her son when he moved into the Council’s area.

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. Mrs X says her son has special educational needs and an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. She says they moved to the Council’s area at the end of September 2024. She complains that the Council subsequently failed to make a school place available for her son, and failed to make alternative arrangements for the delivery of education and the therapies set out in his EHC plan. Mrs X says that, as a result of this fault on the Council’s part, her son’s education and welfare have suffered.
6. The Council has upheld Mrs X’s complaint. In its complaint response it has accepted that the delay in making provision has amounted to fault. It has apologised and set out the action it intends to take to ensure provision is made. In recognition of the negative impact of the failure to make provision it has offered a financial remedy.
7. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate complaints which have been upheld. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. The key question for us is whether our intervention is likely to add anything significant to the outcome which has already been achieved, or lead to a different outcome. That is not the case here.
8. The financial remedy the Council has offered is broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would seek to achieve in the circumstances of the case. The action it has set out is a reasonable and proportionate response to the issues Mrs X raised. Investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Our intervention is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman