Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about education provision. There is insufficient evidence of fault and elements of the complaint fall outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council:
• Failed to provide an alternative education provision to her child, Y while Y was unable to attend school.
• Did not provide the Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision Y is entitled to in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
• Did not share an educational psychologist’s report with her.
• Made an inappropriate comment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended).
4. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability – SEND) considers appeals against council decisions about special educational needs. We refer to it as the tribunal in this decision statement.
5. 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Ms X has a child, Y, who has an EHC Plan. Y’s EHC Plan contains details of their education provision and names a school.
9. Y has not attended school for periods of time. The school recorded these absences as unauthorised.
10. Ms X says there was medical evidence supporting that Y was unable to attend school and the absences should not have been recorded as unauthorised.
11. The Council say the medical evidence did not show Y could not attend school. They say and the school had made adjustments, so it was reasonable for Y to attend. The adjustments included remote teaching during the periods Y could not attend and providing missed therapy later in the school year.
12. The Council considered whether alternative provision was required while Y was not attending school but determined it was not appropriate because Y’s needs could be met by the school.
13. Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide Y with the SEN provision they are entitled to under their EHC Plan.
14. The Council say it spoke to the SENCO and Y’s therapist and confirmed the provision was being met in line with the EHC Plan. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s delivery of the SEN provision to justify investigation.
15. Ms X also complains an educational psychologists report commissioned during tribunal proceedings was not shared before it was finalised.
16. The Council say the report was commissioned as part of the Tribunal proceedings. We cannot investigate this as it is linked to the Tribunal, placing this out of our jurisdiction.
17. Ms X also complains the Council mase an inappropriate comment during an EHC Plan meeting.
18. The Council investigated the comment. The member staff involved says the comment was not made. The Council says there is no independent evidence to support the allegation. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because we could not add to the previous investigation by the organisation and there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. There is insufficient evidence of fault and elements of the complaint fall outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman