Summary: The Ombudsmen cannot investigate Mrs P’s complaint about a meeting to review her son L’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because we cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools and any actions of the Council that are inseparable from these events. We have decided not to investigate Mrs P’s complaint about how a speech and language therapist worked with L and about a safeguarding concern they raised. We are unlikely to find fault by the organisations, and further investigation of the complaint is unlikely to achieve more.

The complaint

1. Mrs P complained about the actions of Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust), Manchester City Council (the Council) and a school in relation to her son L. She complained about how a speech and language therapist had worked with L in school and about a safeguarding concern they raised with the Council. She also complained about events during a meeting in December 2020 to review L’s Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). She said the meeting was used to discuss safeguarding issues rather than the EHCP, and her younger son’s health visitor was invited to the meeting despite it being about her older son L’s needs. Mrs P said she felt the school Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENDCO) and other staff had closed ranks and not been open about what happened at the EHCP review meeting.
2. Mrs P said she wanted to get to the bottom of what had happened, and for the organisations to be honest about their actions and acknowledge what went wrong. She said she wanted some financial compensation for the stress and upset she had been through.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

3. The Ombudsmen have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. Since April 2015, these complaints have been considered by a single team acting on behalf of both Ombudsmen. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA)
4. The Ombudsmen investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, the Ombudsmen consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship. If it has, they may suggest a remedy. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b) as amended)
6. The Courts have said we cannot investigate a complaint about any action by a council concerning a matter which is itself out of our jurisdiction. (R (on the application of M) v Commissioner for Local Administration [2006] EHWCC 2847 (Admin))
7. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• it is unlikely we would find fault, or
• the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the organisations.

(Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(2) and Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I have considered written evidence from Mrs P, the Council and the Trust. I have also discussed the complaint with Mrs P.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

9. Mrs P’s son L is autistic and has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He has an Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) which sets out his special educational needs and support needs. As part of his EHCP L received input from speech and language therapists at his primary school.
10. Mrs P said that in November 2020 a new speech and language therapist started working with L in school. She said the speech and language therapist made a safeguarding referral to the Council about L, as he allegedly said his dad had hurt him by pushing him against a wall. Mrs P complained that the speech and language therapist should have spoken to her first about L, to understand about his behaviours and the way he interprets social situations, before deciding to make a safeguarding referral.
11. Mrs P also complained the speech and language therapist failed to follow the correct processes about safeguarding, and colluded with the school to make the process a personal vendetta against Mrs P.
12. In December 2020 a meeting took place at L’s school to review his EHCP. The meeting was attended by Mrs P, the school SENDCO, a representative from the Council’s SEND Team, the speech and language therapist, and the health visitor for Mrs P’s younger son. Mrs P complained the EHCP review meeting became a meeting about safeguarding issues rather than a review of L’s needs. She complained about how the SENDCO, the speech and language therapist and the Council SEND Team officer acted towards her at the meeting. She also complained about her younger son’s health visitor being invited to the EHCP review as she felt this was not appropriate.
13. Mrs P complained to the Council, the Trust and the school about these events.
14. The Council provided two complaint responses, in March and August 2021. The Trust responded in April and November 2021. We do not have information about the school’s complaint process.

Analysis

The EHCP review meeting

15. The Local Government Act 1974 says the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman cannot investigate any action concerning the internal management of a school. The internal management of a school includes how the school SENDCO carried out the EHCP review meeting for L in December 2020. This means we cannot look at this part of Mrs P’s complaint, including who was invited to the meeting and what was discussed.
16. This restriction on the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction extends further than just the actions of the school. It means we also cannot look at the actions of the Council when it deals with any complaints regarding internal management of schools. On that basis, we cannot investigate Mrs P’s complaint about the actions of the Council’s SEND officer either. This is because it is inseparable from the complaint about the actions of the school SENDCO which is out of our remit.

The speech and language therapist

17. The Trust explained to Mrs P that the speech and language therapist worked in the school on a regular (weekly) basis, and it was the school’s responsibility to tell parents when the therapist was working with a particular child. Nevertheless, the Trust said as a result of the complaint it had developed a more robust pathway to make sure the Speech and Language Therapy Service informed parents about ongoing appointments during school time. We are unlikely to find fault by the Trust’s actions, and it has also carried out further work to address this in any event. We would not be able to achieve more by investigating this.
18. The Trust told Mrs P about the speech and language therapist’s knowledge and expertise of working with autistic children and how to interpret their communication. We are unlikely to find fault by the Trust, and we are unlikely to be able to add to the explanation the Trust has already given about this.
19. The Trust said the speech and language therapist had worked with L and his family before, during 2018. However, the Trust accepted it would have been helpful if the speech and language therapist had contacted Mrs P before the first session with L in school, to get an update. The Trust apologised for this and explained about the more robust pathway it was developing. I consider the Trust has taken appropriate action to address this, and we would not be able to achieve more by investigating.
20. Mrs P was unhappy about how the speech and language therapist shared her safeguarding concerns about L. The Trust explained the information sharing agreement in place between the Speech and Language Therapy Service and the school. It said the school safeguarding lead took the decision to report the incident to the Council as a safeguarding concern. It also said the speech and language therapist had taken advice from the Trust safeguarding nurses.
21. The Trust said the speech and language therapist spoke with Mrs P by phone that day to explain about the safeguarding referral and why it had been made. We are unlikely to find fault in the Trust’s actions. All organisations that work with children should have safeguarding policies and procedures to protect children from harm. If a health professional thinks a safeguarding referral might be necessary, there is a low threshold for taking this forward. A safeguarding referral is the start of a process, and the local authority will decide whether to investigate the issues in more detail.

Back to top

Decision

22. The Ombudsmen cannot investigate Mrs P’s complaint about a meeting to review her son L’s Education Health and Care Plan. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools and any actions of the Council that are inseparable from these events. We have decided not to investigate Mrs P’s complaint about how a speech and language therapist worked with L and about a safeguarding concern they raised. We are unlikely to find fault by the organisations, and further investigation of the complaint is unlikely to achieve more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman