The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s response to a complaint about the loss of personal information and delay in the process of deciding whether to carry out an Education Health and Care Assessment. This is because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so.
The complaint
The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr B, complains that the Council has failed to respond appropriately to his complaint about the loss of information.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Mr B submitted an application for an Education Health and Care Assessment (EHCNA). The Council lost the application, meaning Mr B had to submit it a second time. Mr B complained about the loss of data and the fact that the Council failed to expedite the second application. He says the decision on the application exceeded the six weeks permitted by one day.
In response to Mr B’s complaint the Council has accepted that it lost the initial application. It has also accepted that it failed to make the decision to carry out an EHCNA within the permitted timeframe. It has apologised for its error and offered Mr B what it describes as a goodwill payment of £100. Mr B believes the Council’s response does not recognise the gravity of the fault or the impact it has had on his family.
The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because there is nothing significant to be gained by doing so. The Information Commissioner’s Office is better placed than the Ombudsman to consider the loss of personal data. Mr B may bring his concerns about this aspect of the complaint to the Information Commissioner’s attention.
Turning to the delay in the EHCNA decision, the Council has accepted fault and its apology and offer of payment are a proportionate response. Investigation by the Ombudsman would add nothing significant and is not therefore warranted.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mr B’s complaint because we would not achieve anything significant by doing so.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman