Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns about her daughter’s Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) and education case because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council closed her complaint about her daughter’s safeguarding and education concerns without resolving it or addressing the issues she raised. She says the Council failed to follow the statutory children’s services complaints process. She says she raised concerns about safeguarding, SEND failures, and inaccurate information held by Children’s Services. She says the Stage two response did not deal with her main points, ignored key evidence, and focused on issues she did not raise.

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 (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

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 says the Council mishandled her complaint about her daughter’s Special Educational Needs and Disabilities SEND and education issues and should have used the statutory children’s services complaints procedure.
7. The Council gave a Stage two response that dealt with the administrative issues it could address. It correctly signposted the remaining issues to the SEND Tribunal, which is the proper forum for decisions about Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) assessments and educational provision. The safeguarding concerns she raised were linked to those education matters and did not involve Part 3 Children Act functions, such as a Child in Need assessment. Therefore, the statutory children’s complaint procedure did not apply.
8. The Council was entitled to rely on the Tribunal route for the EHCP matters and to consider the legal letter before action Mrs X sent when deciding how to respond. The evidence does not show it failed to follow its complaints policy or acted outside its discretion by using the corporate procedure.
9. The Council directed the Tribunal issues to the correct route, answered the administrative points it could, and used the right complaints process.
10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman