Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s child’s education, health and care (EHC) plan. This is because the complaint has been substantially upheld and investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to deliver its statutory provision to her child, Y. She says this has meant Y has lost at least three school terms of speech and language therapy (SALT) that Y is entitled to as a part of his EHC plan. Mrs X says this has also caused stress, a loss of time and a lack of trust in the Council.

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 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X complains the Council failed to ensure her child, Y, had the support needed to meet his EHC plan. Specifically, she complains the Council did not provide the agreed SALT provision for several school terms. She argues that, as a result, Y’s academic progress and communication skills have been negatively impacted. The Council has accepted it was at fault and has offered Mrs X a payment of £800 for the lack of provision. It has also ensured that Y is on the NHS SALT caseload, so will receive future provision as stated in his EHC plan.
7. Mrs X also complains the Council’s delays and poor communication has impacted on both her and Y. In response to the fault on its part, the Council has offered Mrs X a payment of £100 for her time and trouble.
8. In this case, it is unlikely that investigation by the Ombudsman would lead to a significantly different outcome. Y is already due to receive SALT from now on, so there is nothing more for us to achieve on that point. It is unlikely we would recommend a significantly larger payment than the Council has already offered.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman