Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to ensure Special Educational Needs provision was being met for two children. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council and investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained that the Council failed to ensure that the Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision detailed in her two children’s Education Health and Care (EHC) plans was being met.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X’s two children (Y & Z) both have SEN and therefore have EHC plans in place. Y’s EHC plan was issued in early June 2024 and Z’s was issued in late May 2024. Ms X subsequently complained to the Council that the SEN provision detailed in Section F of Y & Z’s plans was not being met.
6. The Council visited the school, spoke to teaching staff and reviewed evidence, including timetables and Y & Z’s Individual Education Plans (IEP), alongside their EHC plans. The Council completed a detailed report of how Y & Z’s SEN provision was being met.
7. The Council found that nearly all of Y’s SEN provision was being met. It did find that occupational therapy provision hadn’t started because the therapist had not responded to the school’s request to visit. The Council said it would support the school in contacting the therapist again. The Council also found that the school had faced issues in recruiting a Learning Support Assistant (LSA) but one had now been found and that specific training for them had been planned. In the final response to Ms X’s complaint the Council concluded that all of Y’s SEN provision was either in place or was now ready to commence.
8. The Council also found that nearly all of Z’s SEN provision was being met. It assisted the school in contacting a third party to commence food science sessions and discussions were had with the teacher to ensure other provision was met.
9. The Council did find that occupational therapy provision had been arranged but Ms X had asked to attend sessions in school and that this request had been refused by the therapist.
10. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council has dealt with Ms X’s concerns that provision was not being met for Y & Z. The Council’s decision to decline Ms X’s request to attend its visit to the school was one that it was entitled to make. The Council considered relevant information before reaching the conclusion that nearly all provision was being met. Whilst some provision was not in place at the time the EHC plans were issued, the steps that the Council has taken to resolve this appear to have been appropriate, and for this reason further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. It is unlikely that we would find fault with the Council regarding how it has dealt with Z’s occupational therapy provision. The Council has fully explained why it does not consider it to be appropriate for Ms X to attend the sessions at school and sessions away from school have been offered as a compromise.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman