Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with Mrs X’s complaint about its record-keeping and disclosure of financial information relating to her child’s special educational needs provision. The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider the substantive matters, which are the keeping and disclosure of data. It is not a good use of resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures where we are not investigating the substantive matters.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council:

• Failed to keep proper financial records of the costs of provision in meeting her child’s special educational needs;
• Failed to disclose the accurate costs when she asked for them;
• Failed to lay them out in Section J of her child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan; and
• Failed to consider these matters via its corporate complaint policy.

2. She said the effect of the Council’s actions was to cause her unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the matter. She also said it deprived her of an independent review via the Council’s corporate complaint procedure. She wanted the Council to change its practice and to lay out detailed costs in children’s EHC Plans rather than just a personal budget figure.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mrs X’s complaint is about how the Council dealt with her complaint. It is not a good use of resources for us to investigate this as we are not investigating the substantive matters.
9. The substantive matters concern data handling and disclosure. The Information Commissioner is better placed than us to consider how the Council keeps, discloses and publishes financial data relating to the costs of a child’s SEN provision.
10. This is because the Information Commissioner has powers to require changes in data-keeping and disclosure. It also has powers to impose penalties on public bodies. We cannot do the same thing as we lack similar powers.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint another body is better placed than us to consider the substantive matters.
12. It is not a good use of resources to investigate complaint handling where we are not investigating the substantive matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman