Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Manchester City Council and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust’s support to her son, Mr Y, after 2013. That is because Mrs X appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal in 2013. Also, a significant amount of time has passed since the events complained about which impacts on our ability to consider the complaint about the Trust.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the lack of support for her son, Mr Y, since 2013 from Manchester City Council (the Council) and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). She complains the Trust did not provide appropriate support for Mr Y’s following his autism diagnosis. Also, she says the Council did not provide clear objectives in Mr Y’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) statement and the named school was not suitable. Also, the Council excluded Mrs X from that process.
2. Mrs X says the lack of educational and health support meant Mr Y left school without any qualifications and had been sectioned on several occasions. She also says events have torn their family apart.
3. Mrs X would like the organisations to apologise and review their respective process to ensure similar fault does not happen to others.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 4(1)(a))
5. SEND is a tribunal that considers special educational needs. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (‘SEND’)).
6. The Ombudsmen cannot investigate late complaints unless they decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsmen about something an organisation has done. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 9(4))
7. The Ombudsmen provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. They may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if they believe they cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered information Mrs X has provided in writing and spoke to her on the telephone. Mrs X had an opportunity to comment on two draft decisions. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Key facts

9. In 2013, the Trust diagnosed Mr Y with autism. At that time, he also had an SEN statement.
10. Under the Education Act 1996, an SEN statement is a document which sets out a full and detailed description of a child’s needs, the provision required to meet those needs and the name of the school or other placement where that provision will be delivered. Where a council maintained a statement, it had a statutory duty to arrange and fund both the provision and placement.
11. In June 2022, Mrs X’s MP complained to the Council and Trust. She was unhappy about the lack of support for Mr Y’s autism after 2013 and about his SEN statement from that time.
12. In September 2022, the Trust responded to Mrs X with comments from the Council. Mrs X complained to PHSO a month later.

Analysis

13. I will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint about the Council because it is outside the Ombudsmen’s jurisdiction. Mrs X has already appealed the contents of Mr Y’s SEN statement in 2013.
14. I will also not investigate the complaint about the Trust. I will explain why.
15. The law says complaints should be made to the Ombudsmen within 12 months of the person becoming aware of the matter.
16. Mrs X said Mr Y lacked capacity to complain to the Trust before 2022. I have considered her evidence, and I am not persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Y lacked capacity to make a complaint to the Trust before 2022.
17. Even if I agreed Mr Y lacked capacity, the Ombudsmen provide a free service but must use public money carefully. They may decide not to start an investigation if the prospect of conducting an effective investigation is reduced. In this case, it has been nine years since the matters complained about occurred. As I will explain below, the significant amount of time passed impacts on our ability to consider the complaint now.
18. When a lengthy period of time passed, it can directly affect attempts to gather information at a much later stage. For example, people’s recollections fade and it can be much harder to get accurate accounts of an incident which occurred years before. This could impact the Trust and the Ombudsmen’s ability to consider this complaint now.
19. Mrs X also said she only realised during the first COVID-19 lockdown how far Mr Y’s mental health had deteriorated. She says that was due to a lack of educational and health support since he was at primary school. I do not doubt that lockdown must have been a difficult time for Mr Y and Mrs X. However, I am not persuaded that explains such a significant delay. I consider Mr Y and Mrs X should have approached the Ombudsmen sooner than they did. Overall, there is no good reason for the Ombudsmen to disapply the law to investigate her complaint about the Trust.

Back to top

Final decision

20. I will not investigate this complaint. Mrs X has already appealed to the SEND Tribunal in 2013. Also, Mrs X should have complained about the Trust sooner than she did.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman