Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that the Council excluded her child, Y, from attending an activity session. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault, and an investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council refused to allow her child, Y, to attend a planned activity session due to his Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).
2. Mrs X said the matter caused her distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X has a child, Y. Y has Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND).
8. Mrs X complained that, in August 2024, the Council informed her Y could not attend an “offsite” activity session that Y was due to participate in the next day. Mrs X said she believed Y was excluded because of their SEND.
9. In its complaint response, the Council explained the reason Y could not attend was due to staffing issues. It said Y’s usual key worker was unwell and other staff members were unavailable to facilitate Y’s attendance. It said it offered for Y to attend a different activity on-site.
10. It also explained that, in the future, Y’s key worker would be available to support them to enable their attendance. It said if the key worker was unavailable the Council would try to provide another experienced member of staff, but if it was unable to do so, Y’s parents will be invited to chaperone Y.

Analysis

11. We will not investigate this complaint. There were insufficient members of staff available due to illness, and consequently the Council was unable facilitate Y’s attendance. An investigation is unlikely to determine fault, therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.
12. In addition, the claimed injustice, that Y was unable to attend an off-site activity on one occasion, is not a significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
13. In any case, the Council apologised to Mrs X for the frustration caused by the last-minute change and explained how it would, in future, manage similar situations to facilitate attendance. An investigation by the Ombudsman is unlikely to achieve any different outcome, and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation, and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman