Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council has failed to comply with the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal’s non-binding recommendation in relation to her son’s social care needs and social care provision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council has failed to comply with the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal’s non-binding recommendation in relation to her son’s social care needs and social care provision.

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. (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. The Council completed a social care assessment for Ms X’s son, Z. During the Tribunal proceedings, the Tribunal was aware this assessment had been completed but was not aware of the findings of the assessment.
6. The Tribunal noted the following in its decision:
• That Z was at high risk of isolation in the holidays.
• It seemed likely Z would benefit from social care input intended to build upon the work carried out during term time and to avoid regression.
7. The Tribunal’s recommendations as set out in its decision was:
• For the Council to “consider making such provision if it is not included within the provision identified within the assessment”.
• Include, in Section H1, that “Z should receive social provision to enable him to engage in education and training if such provision is not already included within the provision identified by an existing but as yet undisclosed social care assessment.”
8. Social care recommendations by the Tribunal are non-binding.
9. In this case, the Council had considered the Tribunal’s recommendation but decided it could not follow the recommendations. This Council wrote to Ms X to outline its reasons. These were:
• The Council completed its social care assessment in June 2024.
• The assessment recognised Z has needs and struggles with accessing the world around him. It also acknowledged Z’s past trauma and experiences have contributed and exacerbated the struggles.
• The assessment did not conclude it was necessary to provide services or support under S17 of the Children Act 1989 or Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to enable Z to engage in training or education. Instead, Z’s needs could be reasonably met through the range of services and support accessible within his community, targeted support accessible through central government, and Early Help support.
• Council was mindful that following Z’s transition to secondary school, there may be changes within his presenting needs that require further consideration which can take place through early help assessment and planning.
10. An investigation is not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council. This is because it has properly considered the Tribunal’s non-binding recommendations, clearly set out its reasons for why it will not follow them, and clearly communicated these reasons to Ms X. We cannot criticise or overturn a decision if the decision has been properly made.

Back to top

Final decision

We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman