Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council providing misleading information about applying for an Education, Health and Care Plan for his child and about the Council considering the placement of a child with his family to be an informal arrangement. There is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify an investigation into the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that the Council:

• Provided incorrect and misleading information about his right to apply for an Education, Health and Care Plan for his child. Mr X considers the misleading information meant support for his child’s special educational needs was delayed and placed his family under significant strain.
• Wrongly considered the placement of a child with his family to be an informal care arrangement. Mr X says this caused emotional and practical strain to his family.

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 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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The statutory children’s complaints procedure was set up to provide children, young people and those involved in their welfare with access to an independent, thorough and prompt response to their concerns. Because of this, if a council has investigated something under the statutory children’s complaint process, the Ombudsman would not normally re-investigate it.
4. However, we may look at whether there were any flaws in the stage two investigation or stage three review panel that could call the findings into question. We may also consider whether a council properly considered the findings and recommendations of the independent investigation and review panel.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained to the Council about a number of issues. These included officers providing misleading information about whether he could apply for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for his child and the Council wrongly considering a child had been placed with his family under an informal arrangement.
8. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint through all three stages of the statutory complaints procedure. At stage two, the Council appointed an Investigating Officer and an Independent Person to oversee the investigation and produce a report. The stage two investigation did not uphold Mr X’s complaint about the Council providing misleading information about applying for an EHC Plan. It found that the Council did not place a child with Mr X. They considered the child was placed under an informal agreement between Mr X and the child’s family. But the investigation found that the Council did not properly explain the arrangement to Mr X.
9. The Council wrote to Mr X and apologised to him for the lack of clear communication about the child’s placement with his family. The Council explained how it would implement the stage two investigation’s recommendations to improve its service.
10. Mr X asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage three as he disagreed with the findings on his complaint about the EHC Plan and placement of the child with his family. At stage three, an independent panel reviewed the stage two investigation and findings. The panel decided it could not make a finding about whether the Council had provided misleading information about applying for an EHC Plan due to a conflict of information. The panel found the Council did not clearly explain the status of the child’s placement with Mr X. It did not make a clear finding on whether the Council had placed the child with Mr X.
11. The Council wrote to Mr X and apologised for the lack of clear communication around the child’s placement with his family. The Council provided information about how it was implementing the panel’s recommendations.
12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. We have reviewed the stage two report, the stage three panel findings and the adjudicating letters from the Council. The stage two report and stage three panel explained the reasons for their findings. The Council apologised for its poor communication about the child’s placement. It also explained the improvements it will make as a result of Mr X’s complaint. Further investigation of Mr X’s complaint about the EHC Plan and the Council’s communication about the child’s placement will not achieve any more for him.
13. We note the stage three panel did not come to a view on whether the Council placed the child with Mr X’s family or if it was an informal arrangement. But we will not investigate this matter. There is insufficient injustice to Mr X to justify an investigation as the child lived with Mr X and his family for a very short period of time. The stage three panel’s report also shows the Council’s early help team provided some support with the placement.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint as there is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify an investigation into the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman