Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that fault on the Council’s part caused the complainant’s son to lose the opportunity to take public examinations. Investigation would not add anything significant to the response the complainant has already received, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that because of fault on the Council’s part her son missed the opportunity to take public examinations. As a result, he has been disadvantaged.

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.
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. Miss X says that, due to his special educational needs, it was intended that he take public examinations over two years, beginning in May 2025. She complains that the Council’s officer responsible for her son’s EHC plan failed to register him for the examinations. As a result, her son has missed the opportunity to take examinations in 2025.
6. Miss X contends that the failures on behalf of the Council’s officer have disadvantaged her son. She wants the officer removed from her son’s case, and for the Council to improve the way it communicates with her in future.
7. The correspondence Miss X has provided shows that the Council has upheld her complaint about fault in how it has communicated. It has set out that it has implemented a new case management system and has agreed to Miss X’s request for a meeting to discuss her son’s case.
8. Where a complaint has been upheld substantially or in part, as is the case here, the question for the Ombudsman is whether investigation is likely to add anything significant or lead to a different outcome. It would not do so in this case. The Council has set out how it intends to improve case management and has agreed to meet with Miss X, as she requested.
9. The only outcome Miss X is seeking which has not received a response is that the Council replace the officers dealing with her son’s case. That is not something the Ombudsman can achieve for her. We consider complaints about councils as corporate bodies, not about individual officers, and it is not for us to comment on how the Council deploys individuals. The matter does not fall within our jurisdiction. That being the case. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not add anything significant to the response Miss X has already received and our intervention is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman