The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council not arranging provision set out in an Education Health and Care plan. Any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
The complaint
Mrs X complained the Council: Failed to arrange the provision set out in her children’s Education Health and Care plans (EHC plans) after she moved into its area.
Stopped the respite provision for her children, P and Q.
Did not end a telephone call properly resulting in her hearing a conversation where staff were laughing at her case.
Mrs X said the Council’s actions had caused P and Q’s wellbeing to deteriorate. She wants the Council to put provision in place and pay financial compensation.
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 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
P and Q both have EHC plans. The Council’s complaint response confirms that after Mrs X moved into its area it: Contacted her to discuss P and Q’s provision.
Arranged reviews of the EHC plans.
Referred P and Q for tutoring whilst it consulted with appropriate providers.
Offered a placement for both children which Mrs X turned down.
Made a referral for a different placement based on feedback from Mrs X.
The complaint response shows the Council had arranged provision eight weeks after the initial referral.
Although Mrs X is unhappy with the time it took to secure provision, we will not investigate this complaint. The Council had three weeks from the point of referral to arrange the provision set out in the EHC plans. It took eight. That was a delay of five weeks. We would not consider any injustice caused by that delay significant enough to justify our involvement.
In addition, I am satisfied the Council took appropriate steps to secure education for P and Q when they first moved into its area. Delays were caused by it attempting to accommodate Mrs X’s requests. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify our involvement.
We will also not investigate Mrs X’s complaint the Council stopped respite for P and Q. Any previous respite provision had been arranged by Mrs X’s old council area. The Council said after Mrs X arrived in its area, it arranged for a children’s assessment with its Targeted Support Service. It also offered to complete a parent carers assessment. If Mrs X is unhappy with the outcome of either of these assessments, she would need to make a new complaint to the Council.
The Council accepted an Officer who spoke to Mrs X did not end the telephone call properly. It said because of that, Mrs X heard conversations taking place in the open plan office. It said the conversations were non-work related. The Council apologised for any distress caused. The Council’s apology is in line with our Guidance on Remedies. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint, as further investigation will not lead to a different outcome.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman