Summary: Ms X complained about the Council’s poor communication and failure to respond to her request for reasonable adjustments and her complaint about the same. The Council is at fault for failing to respond to some communication and delay responding to Ms X’s complaint. This has caused Ms X distress. The Council has already apologised and offered reasonable adjustments; this is a satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council pay her 30p per mile to transport her child to Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) provision when the HMRC recommends Councils pay 45p per mile which other parents and staff receive. This is a financial injustice for Ms X. She would like the Council to pay her 45p per mile and make a back payment.
2. Ms X also complained about the Council’s poor communication and failure to respond to her request for reasonable adjustments and her complaint about the same. This has limited her ability to deal with her correspondence independently and caused her distress. She would like the Council to consider her request for reasonable adjustments and her subsequent complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. In conversation with Ms X, she explained the Council agreed to pay her 45p per mile in transport costs and agreed to pay her back-pay. She is satisfied with the Council’s response to this part of her complaint. I will not investigate this further.
6. I have considered Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s poor communication as set out in her original complaint to the Council and her later complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Council’s policies and procedures

9. The Council’s Customer Promise is available online and sets out the service individuals should expect to receive when corresponding with the Council.
10. It says it will acknowledge receipt of an email or letter within three working days.
11. If the individual asks for a response to a phone call, email or letter, the Council will aim to provide this within ten working days. If this is not possible, it will tell the individual and explain when a reply can be expected.
12. The Council’s Corporate Complaint Procedure is also available online. It explains it will send an acknowledgement of the complaint within three days of receipt. It aims to provide a response within ten working days from receipt but explains this can go up to a maximum of 20 working days from receipt.
13. If the matter is not resolved, the complainant can ask for a stage two investigation. The target timescale is 20 working days. If the complainant is not satisfied with the response, it explains they have a right to ask the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate.

What happened

14. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
15. Ms X told me she has Special Educational Needs.
16. Ms X’s child has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
17. In May 2024, Ms X complained to the Council. She said she was struggling to contact her planning coordinator to discuss her child’s EHC Plan. She said she contacted the Council in late April and twice in May to ask for a reasonable adjustment to have a meeting with the planning coordinator. She said the Council had failed to do this. She said the Council’s failure to make reasonable adjustments placed her at a disadvantage.
18. In June 2024, the Council issued a stage one response. It said the officer who had been liaising with Ms X would contact her by the end of the week to arrange a meeting to discuss her child’s EHC Plan.
19. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it arranged a meeting with Ms X and the officer in July.
20. The complaint response letter explained Ms X could has for a stage two review if she was not satisfied with the response.
21. The Council said Ms X did not ask for a stage two review.
22. Ms X complained to the Local Government Ombudsman in August 2024.

Analysis

23. Ms X said she contacted the Council in April and twice in May and did not receive a response. Under the Council's Customer Promise, the Council should have acknowledged receipt of Ms X’s email within three working days and responded within ten working days. There is no record of this. The Council is at fault for failing to respond to Ms X’s emails.
24. The Councils Complaint Policy says it will acknowledge receipt of complaints within three working days. The Council acknowledged receipt the following day. it is not at fault.
25. The Councils Complaint Policy says it aims to provide a full response to complaints within a maximum of 20 working days. The Council responded around a week after the 20-day deadline, this is fault. In its complaint response, the Council acknowledged this was delay and apologised for this.
26. The Council’s stage one complaint response clearly sets out how to request a review. Ms X did not ask for a stage two investigation. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it never declines a request to escalate a complaint and would have escalated this complaint had Ms X had requested this. There is no reason to suggest the Council would not have considered Ms X’s request for a stage two investigation had she asked for it. The Council is not at fault.
27. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it could not find any request for reasonable adjustments or support from Ms X before she made the complaint. Once the Council received the complaint and was aware of Ms X’s request for reasonable adjustments, it offered this. The Council offered a meeting in its complaint response and arranged a date roughly a month after the complaint response and two months after Ms X’s complaint. I consider this is a reasonable and appropriate response. The Council is not at fault.

Summary – is there fault causing injustice?

28. The Council failed to respond to Ms X’s emails in April and May. This is fault which caused Ms X distress.
29. The Council delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint by roughly a week. This is fault. I do not consider this to be a significant injustice to Ms X.
30. The Council has already addressed Ms X’s concerns in its complaint response and apologised which is a satisfactory remedy.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has already acknowledged this and apologised which is a satisfactory remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman