Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about several issues related to the Council’s intervention with her and her child. She complains the Council failed to obtain correct assessments for her child’s Education, Health, and Care plan, manipulated a social services report, and about the actions of an officer during a home visit. This is because some matters are out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about several issues related to the Council’s intervention with her and her child. She complains:
• The Council failed to obtain the correct assessments for her child’s Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plan. This resulted in her child not being supported appropriately.
• The Council manipulated a social services report.
• About the actions of a Council officer during a home visit, the early help assessment completed by the officer, and the support recommended.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We have the power to start or end an investigation into a complaint about actions the law allows us to investigate. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we think the issues could reasonably be, or have been mentioned as part of the legal proceedings regarding a closely related matter. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
5. 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 an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complains that the Council failed to obtain the correct assessments for her child’s EHC plan. This is because the consequence of the alleged fault is that the child’s EHC plan was not suitable to meet their special educational needs (SEN).
10. Ms X has the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal if she considers the SEN provisions outlined in the EHC plan are not appropriate or sufficient to support her child’s needs. If the Tribunal considers assessments to be appropriate, it can order the Council to obtain them. I am satisfied it is reasonable to expect Ms X to use her right of appeal.
11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council manipulating a social services report. This is because the adequacy of the social services report could reasonably be mentioned as part of the legal proceedings that are currently ongoing.
12. Ms X complained about the actions of an officer who was assigned to complete an early help assessment to identify if any support could be provided to help Ms X’s child. She said the officer failed to provide requested support, inappropriately entered her daughter’s bedroom during a visit, and diagnosed her child with a medical condition even though he was not a medical professional.
13. The case records showed the officer visited Ms X and the child during a home visit. The case records do not detail that the officer entered the child’s bedroom. Further, in emails from Ms X to the officer following the visit details, Ms X commented the officer X had offered to meet/join the child in the bedroom, rather than stating the officer had gone into the child’s bedroom.
14. On balance, I am satisfied it is more likely than not the officer did not enter the child’s bedroom. In any case, any decision on how to engage and interact with the child would be for the officer to make. We could not criticise or find fault with an officer’s professional judgment just because Ms X disagrees with the approach taken by the officer.
15. Ms X was also unhappy about the early help assessment completed by the officer and the support they recommended. I have reviewed the case records and can see Ms X disagreed with some of the information contained within the assessment and that she was unhappy the officer would not agree to provide some of the support she requested. The records showed the officer explained to Ms X why the service would not offer some of the support.
16. An investigation is not justified because there is insufficient evidence of fault with the way the assessment was completed, and it was for the officer to determine what support the service could offer to Ms X and her child.
17. Finally, Ms X said the officer had diagnosed her child with a medical condition. However, the records showed the officer confirmed the information included in the assessment which referred to the child having a medical condition was a typing error. The officer confirmed the sentence was meant to say the child did not have that medical condition, but that the strategies often used for those with that medical condition may be beneficial for Ms X’s child.
18. Therefore, an investigation is not justified as there are no worthwhile outcomes. The officer has already acknowledged the mistake and put this right.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because some matters are out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In addition, there is insufficient evidence of fault and an investigation would not lead to any worthwhile outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman