Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about educational provision because it is reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Tribunal. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council, and we cannot achieve the outcome Mr X wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that the Council has failed to provide his child, Y, who has special educational needs, with one-to-one supervision. Mr X says this leaves Y vulnerable.
2. Mr X also complains about how the Council has handled his complaint and says he has spent considerable time and effort trying to find a resolution
3. Mr X wants the Council to provide one-to-one supervision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. 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 we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Y has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan which names a small specialist school for Y to attend. The Council has told Mr X it the school is meeting the needs of Y, as defined in the EHC Plan.
11. I have reviewed the EHC plan. While it does say Y needs supervision throughout the day, it does not specify that the supervision must be one-on-one. As the EHC plan does not specify one-to-one supervision, we are unlikely to find fault with the Council for not providing it. Nor can we recommend the Council should provide support beyond what the EHC Plan specifies, so cannot achieve the outcome Mr X seeks.
12. If Mr X believes the EHC Plan should be changed to meet Y’s needs, it is reasonable for him to use his right to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal can direct changes to the EHC Plan, we cannot. So, we will not investigate this complaint.
13. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we decide not to investigate the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because it is reasonable for him to appeal to the tribunal. We are unlikely to find fault with the Council for not providing extra supervision beyond what is in the EHC Plan, and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman