Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to properly consider and respond to the complainant’s concerns about the conduct of it officer. Our intervention would not add anything significant to the investigation the Council has carried out or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council failed to properly consider and respond to her complaint about the conduct of it officer, and has failed to acknowledge that the officer’s conduct was harmful to her child.

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 daughter has special educational needs and is regarded by the Council as a Child In Need. Miss X says that the Council’s Special Educational Needs Advisory Teacher was at fault in the course of two meetings at which her daughter was discussed. The first was a professionals’ meeting called to discuss her child’s education. The second was a Child In Need review.
6. Miss X says the officer dismissed her concerns and acted with bias against her. She says the officer influenced other professionals in favour of inappropriate provision for her daughter, undermining her advocacy as a parent. In her view, the officer’s actions amounted to gaslighting and discrimination. She believes the officer’s opinions may have influenced the content on her daughter’s EHC plan and may potentially impact proceedings in the Family Court.
7. Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council, which it did not uphold. Miss X does not believe her concerns were properly addressed. She wants the Council to acknowledge that the officer’s actions had a negative impact.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is no realistic prospect that our intervention would add to the investigation the Council has carried out, or lead to a different outcome. The minutes of the two meetings show that the officer expressed her professional opinions but do not indicate that there was fault in the way she did so. Miss X disagrees with the officer’s views, but that does not mean they amount to fault. That being the case, the Council’s response is reasonable and proportionate, and it is not for the Ombudsman to intervene to substitute an alternative view.
9. Since the meetings took place, the Council has issued Miss X’s daughter with an EHC plan. We cannot consider whether the officer’s views influenced the EHC plan’s content, as this is a matter where Miss X had the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would have been reasonable for her to do so. Neither can we consider any impact the Council’s actions may have on private legal proceedings. By law, we cannot consider what happens in court. There is therefore nothing significant to be achieved from investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is nothing significant to be achieved by doing so.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman