Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue a report on its Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Service. That is because the complainant has not been caused a significant injustice by the Council’s decision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council refused to complete a statutory report of its Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Service. She said the Council was required to do this under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, as it was acting unlawfully in respect of SEND provision.
2. Mrs X said failings in the Council’s SEND Service resulted in her child not getting the education or support they needed. She said the Council’s refusal to issue a report had undermined her confidence in the Council. She wants the Council to report on its SEND practices and restore lawful governance.

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:
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or

• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint.

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

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. The Council’s Monitoring Officer can issue a section 5 report under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, when they believe a proposal, decision or omission by the authority has, or is likely to, break the law.
7. Mrs X contacted the Monitoring Officer asking them to issue a section 5 report, based on her child’s experiences of the Council’s SEND Service. The Council’s Monitoring Officer rejected the request. In their response to Mrs X, they disagreed with her assertion the Council had systemically failed to comply with SEND statutory obligations. They stated the Council had publicly accepted its SEND provision needed improvements, and that this had been subject to reports to the Council’s Scrutiny Committee, Cabinet and full Council.
8. Although Mrs X is unhappy with the Council’s response, we will not investigate her complaint for the following reasons.
• We will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures by an organisation. The Council’s decision not to complete a section 5 report into its SEND provision has not caused Mrs X a significant personal injustice. We are separately considering her complaint about the Council’s failings in relation to her child’s SEND provision.
• The Council has set out its reasons for not completing a section 5 report. That is a decision it is entitled to make. We can not direct the Council to issue such a report. Therefore, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs X wants.
• Mrs X has escalated her concerns about the Monitoring Officer’s conduct to the relevant professional body. That body is best placed to consider her concerns around professional conduct and public accountability.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has not suffered a personal significant injustice by the Council’s refusal to complete a section 5 report.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman