Summary: Mr B complains the Council did not provide services outlined in his son, Y’s, EHCP after he transferred from another local authority. He says the Council placed Y in an unsuitable school and delayed in reviewing the EHCP, which had a significant negative impact on his son’s education and development. The Ombudsman finds the Council at fault for delay in completing a reassessment, not providing the services set out in Y’s existing EHCP and not considering Mr B’s complaint in line with its complaint procedure.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Mr B, complains the Council did not provide the services outlined in Y’s existing Education Health and Care Plan (“EHCP”) after he moved from another local authority area. Mr B says the Council placed Y in an inappropriate school where the relative ability of his peers was not suitable and he did not have access to assisted technology. Mr B says the Council accepted the school was not appropriate and said it would move him but then went back on this, meaning he needed to apply to the tribunal. He says that, while at the school, the Council did not provide services such as occupational therapy (“OT”) and speech and language therapy (“SALT”) in line with the existing EHCP.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with a council’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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered the information Mr B provided and spoke to him about the complaint, then made enquiries of the Council. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Mr B and the Council for their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and Guidance

6. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs and disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years’ (”the Code”) sets out the process for carrying out EHC assessments and producing EHC Plans. The guidance is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014.
7. As part of the assessment councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). This includes:
• the child’s education placement;
• medical advice and information from health care professionals involved with the child;
• psychological advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP);
• social care advice and information;
• advice and information from any person requested by the parent or young person, where the council considers it reasonable; and
• any other advice and information the council considers appropriate for a satisfactory assessment.
8. Those consulted have a maximum of six weeks to provide the advice.
9. The process of assessing needs and developing EHC Plans “must be carried out in a timely manner”. Local authorities should ensure they have planned sufficient time for each step of the process, so that wherever possible, any issues or disagreements can be resolved within the statutory timescales. Steps must be completed as soon as practicable; the whole process from the point when an assessment is requested until the final EHC Plan is issued must take no more than 20 weeks (unless certain specific circumstances apply). These circumstances may include:
• appointments with people from whom the local authority has requested information are missed by the child or young person
• the child or young person is absent from the area for a period of at least 4 weeks
• exceptional personal circumstances affect the child or his/her parent, or the young person, and
• the educational institution is closed for at least 4 weeks, which may delay the submission of information from the school or other institution
10. Parents have a right to request a personal budget for the EHCP, which may contain elements of education, social care and health funding.
11. Parents have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal if they disagree with the special educational provision or the school named in their child’s EHC plan. The right of appeal is only engaged when the final amended plan is issued.
12. Where a child or young person moves to another council, the ‘old’ council must transfer the EHC plan to the ‘new’ council. The new council must review the plan before one of the following deadlines, whichever is later:
• within 12 months of the plan being made or being previously reviewed by the old authority, or
• within 3 months of the plan being transferred
13. The Code says the new council may, on the transfer of the EHC plan, bring forward the arrangements for the review of the plan, and may conduct a new EHC needs assessment regardless of when the previous EHC needs assessment took place. This will be particularly important where the plan includes provision that is secured through the use of a direct payment, where local variations may mean that arrangements in the original EHC plan are no longer appropriate.
14. The new council must tell the child’s parent or the young person, within six weeks of the date of transfer, when it proposes to review the plan and if it intends to make an EHC needs assessment. (Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014) 
15. The process for re-assessment will be the same as the process for a first assessment (once the decision to carry out an assessment has been taken). The overall maximum timescale for a re-assessment is 14 weeks from the decision to re-assess to the issuing of the final EHC plan. However, the local authority must aim to complete the process as soon as practicable.
16. The courts have established that if someone has lodged an appeal to a SEND Tribunal, the Ombudsman cannot investigate any matter which is ‘inextricably linked’ to the matters under appeal. This means that if a person disagrees with the placement named in an EHC Plan we cannot seek a remedy for lack of education after the date the appeal was submitted if it is linked to the disagreement about the school place named. (R (on the application of ER) v Commissioner for Local Administration (Local Government Ombudsman) [2014] EWCA Civ 1407).

Background

17. Mr B’s son, Y, has special education needs (“SEN”) arising from the following difficulties:
• Gross and fine motor skills
• Self-help skills
• Communication skills
18. He previously lived in a different local authority area and had an EHCP in place. The EHCP was amended in 2015 following a tribunal decision. The EHCP set out a wide range of provisions to assist Y. Included in the provisions were:
• Y will receive SALT in two direct sessions per week within an educational setting.
• Y will receive at least one weekly session of OT for 40 minutes and a further 30 minutes of indirect OT per week to design, monitor and update any OT targets, recommendations and programmes.
• Y will receive assistive technology to support him as much as possible.
19. The family received a personal budget from the previous council to arrange the SALT and OT services. That council last reviewed the EHCP in February 2018.
20. In August 2018 Mr B’s family moved to the Council’s area. It notified the Council before the move, in June 2018. The family contacted several schools in the local area and found one they considered was suitable. However, that school was full so Mr B contacted the Council who confirmed it was suitable but did not secure a place. Mrs B says the Council did not offer Y a place until September 2018, at a school for children with SEN.
21. Mrs B visited the school and was concerned about its suitability. She was concerned the peer group at the school was not appropriate for Y. Most were verbal and able to read and write, whereas Y relied on assistive technology, which was not present in the school. The Council assured Mrs B the class was suitable and so the family reluctantly agreed. Y’s first day at the school was in late September 2018.
22. Mrs B asked the Council about the therapies that needed to be delivered in line with the EHCP. The Council said it may deliver therapies in a different way to the previous council and some may not be available due to different eligibility criteria. The Council indicated that it would not provide a personal budget in the same way for SALT and OT as the services were commissioned through the health care trust and therefore already funded. The Council said it would ask the school to seek updated OT and SALT advice then complete a review of the EHCP.
23. The school requested the reports from OT and SALT in October 2018. The Council says the school asked for paperwork from Mr and Mrs B but did not receive this despite chasing. An email from the school says it was able to speak to Mrs B in January 2019 and informed her it did not have the EHCP or other documents needed. It said it did not then receive these from the family. Therefore, it agreed to complete the referrals without the paperwork. SALT completed a report in late January 2019 and OT in March 2019. Mr B says the family did not delay in sending any paperwork and was engaged with the Council throughout. He has provided correspondence and other records, which shows communication between the Council and the family about what paperwork was required.
24. Mr B says it was clear there were problems at the school from the outset. A review took place with the school in February 2019, and the school made it clear it could not meet Y’s needs. Mr B says a teacher also said this was the first time she had seen Y’s EHCP. He complained the Council had not provided the therapies outlined in the existing EHCP during the time Y had been at the new school and asked the Council to reinstate these. They also asked the Council to consider a move to a different school and suggested a school they considered was more suitable.
25. In April 2019 the Council wrote to update Mr and Mrs B. It said the new OT report had not recommended any ongoing OT support within the school environment. However, it would ask the OT to consider the previous OT reports from 2017 and 2018, to see if this made any difference to their findings. It said it did not consider the school suggested by the parents was suitable as the children there had significant physical disabilities, more so than Y. Also, the school was full and the complexity of the needs of the students made it difficult to admit an extra student.
26. The Council produced a proposed a draft EHCP and sent this to Mr and Mrs B in late May 2019. The draft EHCP did not include the same OT or SALT provision as that from the previous local authority. It said the new OT and SALT reports made recommendations that were different to the provision outlined in the existing EHCP. However, it noted the family wished for OT and SALT provision to continue as before, by way of a personal budget.
27. The Council issued the final EHCP in July 2019. The Council apologised for the time taken to complete the EHCP. It accepted there were errors on the part of the Council and school in the management of transferring the EHCP. However, it remained of the view the school Y attended was suitable. The school also indicated that it considered it could continue to meet Y’s needs.
28. Mr and Mrs B appealed the final EHCP on the grounds that:
• Section B of the EHCP did not appropriately describe Y’s needs
• Section F did not include the level of provision required to meet those needs
• An alternative school should be named in Section I
29. The appeal was submitted in October 2019. Mr and Mrs B identified a college they believed would be suitable for Y. The college took 16- to 25-year-olds and Y would have been outside his year group during the remainder of the first year. The Council expressed concerns about this. The Council consulted with this college, and it confirmed it could meet Y’s needs from September 2020.
30. An appeal date was set for February 2020. Mr and Mrs B applied to rearrange the hearing for March 2020 to allow time for expert assessments. The appeal was then delayed further due to issues including availability of witnesses. The appeal hearing took place in June 2020.
31. During the lead up to the tribunal Mr and Mrs B arranged for independent SALT and OT therapists to assess Y. The Council and school initially did not allow those therapists to access the school, raising concerns about disruption to the class and added pressure from regular observation of the teacher. The Council said it would not normally allow privately instructed therapists to carry out assessments in school. Mr and Mrs B’s representatives challenged this and indicated they would apply to the tribunal for an order if necessary. I cannot see from the documentation available exactly how or when this was resolved, but it appears the assessments did eventually take place and were available for the tribunal. Mr and Mrs B’s representatives listed this as a reason for further delaying the hearing until June 2020.
32. The tribunal found that Y received no SALT therapy for the first year he was at the school and there was no OT assessment until towards the end of Y’s first year. It said the OT recommendations were then very limited and not personalised to Y. It found the college Mr and Mrs B had identified was suitable and should be named in the EHCP.
33. In September 2020 Mr and Mrs B made a formal complaint to the Council. They complained the Council had ignored a legally binding EHCP, placed Y in an inappropriate school, that officers had acted in an unprofessional way in doing so and this had harmed Y’s education and development. Mr and Mrs B also complained the Council had not allowed independent experts access to the school and in line with the tribunal process code of conduct and this led to delays in the process and further legal costs.
34. Mr and Mrs B asked the Council to accept responsibility and apologise, then set out the steps it would take to avoid other families being put in the same position. They asked the Council to pay compensation for the loss of SALT and OT services, the distress caused, and additional legal costs.
35. The Council decided not to treat Mr and Mrs B’s letter as a complaint, but instead a claim for damages in negligence, given the high level of compensation requested. It passed the matter to its insurers, who responded in November 2021. The insurers refuted any claim of negligence or that Mr and Mrs B were entitled to compensation. However, as a gesture of goodwill it offered Mr and Mrs B £1000 in settlement of any proposed legal claim.
36. Mr B says the letter of complaint was not intended as a legal claim. He says he wanted the Council to treat it as a complaint, but it declined to consider the requests for compensation as part of that complaint.

Findings

37. I have investigated the following aspects of Mr B’s complaint:
• Delay and communication in reviewing/re-assessing Y’s EHCP
• Not providing the services outlined in the EHCP
• Placing Y in an inappropriate school
• The Council’s response to Mr B’s complaint
38. There are other elements of the complaint I have not investigated for the reasons outlined at Paragraphs 83 and 84.

Delay and communication in reviewing/re-assessing Y’s EHCP

39. It is my view the Council is at fault for:
• Not telling the parents whether it intended to conduct a re-assessment
• Not properly identifying that it was completing a re-assessment, rather than only a review of the existing EHCP
• Failing to adequately plan to meet the statutory timescales for a re-assessment

Telling parents whether it would conduct a reassessment

40. The Council’s responsibilities on the transfer of a child into its area are outlined in the ‘Law and Guidance’ section of this statement.
41. In this case, when Y moved home, the Council should have told Mr B when it intended to review the EHCP and whether it intended to conduct a needs assessment, within six weeks.
42. Y moved areas in August 2018. The Council indicated it would conduct a review of the EHCP at the start of October 2018. I do not know the exact date of the move, but this suggests the Council made Mr B aware it would review the plan either within the required six weeks or only a short period outside of it. However, it did not say whether it would conduct a re-assessment, as required by the Code.

Reassessment rather than only a review

43. This is relevant because there were different statutory timescales involved depending on what the Council decided.
44. If the Council only intended to review the plan, it should have done so by February 2019 at the latest. However, it was entitled to bring this review forward if it considered necessary. It should then have completed any amendments and produced a final EHCP without delay. There are no specific definitions in the Code of what ‘without delay’ means. It may depend on the circumstances of the case. More recent case law suggests it should not take more than three months.
45. If the Council decided to conduct a re-assessment, it had a statutory duty to complete this within 14 weeks of that decision, except in exceptional circumstances. If the decision was in October 2018, this would mean it should have produced a final EHCP by no later than early January 2019.
46. The purpose of a review is to monitor a child’s progress towards the outcomes set out in their existing EHCP, and to decide whether the outcomes or provisions should be modified. A full re-assessment may be appropriate when the Council considers there is need to review the whole plan, particularly when the child’s needs may have changed significantly.
47. It is clear from the Council’s correspondence that it considered the existing EHCP, as a whole, was not appropriate for the Council’s area. It indicated it would not provide the therapies by way of direct payments, which was a fundamental change. It also requested new OT and SALT assessments, based on which it significantly changed Y’s statement of needs and the provisions to meet these needs. Based on this, it seems clear the Council went beyond reviewing and amending the existing EHCP. It completed a full re-assessment of Y’s needs, and produced a new plan, with new outcomes, based on new health advice. Therefore, the statutory timescales for a reassessment should have applied.

Planning to meet the statutory timescales

48. The Code says councils should ensure they have planned sufficient time for each step of the process, so wherever possible, any issues or disagreements can be resolved within statutory timescales.
49. I cannot see evidence of planning on the Council’s part to complete various tasks within set timescales. In terms of requesting new OT and SALT assessments, the Council appears to have left this to the school and not had any oversight over the length of time taken. I understand the school highlights issues it had obtaining relevant documents from the parents. Mr B contests this and has provided correspondence in support. However, either way it was not until January 2019, the end of the 14 weeks, that the school decided to go ahead without that documentation. There is no indication the Council took any role in ensuring any difficulties were resolved and referrals were completed with adequate time remaining to meet relevant timeframes.
50. I understand that later the parents disagreed with the draft and the Council agreed to obtain an updated view from the therapists with them having seen the previous reports. This led to further delay. However, again, as the Code makes clear, some difficulty and disagreement is expected in the assessment procedure and the Council should plan to ensure there is time to deal with this within the expected timescales. In this case the Council did not complete the draft until May 2019 or the final plan until July 2019, seven months outside the statutory timescale of 14 weeks for a re-assessment.
51. Even if the Council was only conducting a review, it may have had more leeway with the time, but it is still clear the review took far longer than it should have done, when the Council indicated it would complete the review in October 2018. It is still the case that the Council did not properly take control of the procedure or plan to ensure any issues and disagreements were dealt with in a timely way.

Not providing the services outlined in Y’s EHCP

52. I find fault in the Council not providing the services outlined in Y’s EHCP until it issued its updated EHCP in July 2019.
53. The Council was entitled to review the EHCP, but until it completed that review, the existing EHCP was still a current and relevant legal document. Y should have received the services outlined in that EHCP. This included specific requirements for personalised SALT and OT input and a general requirement to use assistive technology in the classroom as far as possible. It is clear Y did not receive any personalised SALT or OT input throughout his first year in the Council’s area. I can see the tribunal also raised concerns over whether the school did enough to engage Y using assistive technology.
54. I understand there were delays in completing the review and the Council may not have expected it to take so long. However, it would always have taken time to contact new therapists, arrange appointments for assessments, draft a new EHCP, get the parents’ comments, deal with any concerns or disagreements and finalise the plan. At best this procedure would take several weeks, and the Council could not, until the conclusion of the procedure, say how its support would eventually differ from the existing EHCP. It should have ensured Y received these services in the meantime, even if that was by means other than a direct payment. Although I note Mr and Mrs B were entitled to request a direct payment and have the Council consider this.
55. To not put anything in place at all for the entire school year was fault and would likely have had a direct, detrimental impact on Y’s education.

Placing Y in an inappropriate school

56. I do not find fault with the Council placing Y at the school.
57. I understand Mr and Mrs B had concerns about the school from the outset and say the school later confirmed Y’s teacher had not seen his EHCP. They say the school made it clear in February 2019 that it could not meet Y’s needs. However, the documents available show the school confirmed it had received the EHCP on admission and maintained throughout that it considered it could meet Y’s needs.
58. I note the tribunal accepted evidence from independent therapists engaged by Mr and Mrs B. It issued an order for an EHCP with an amended statement of Y’s needs and a more comprehensive package of support to meet his needs than the Council’s draft EHCP. This could suggest the Council did not appreciate Y’s needs in full when it placed him at the school, when it completed the draft and up until the conclusion of the tribunal. However, I cannot say for certain whether that would have made any difference to the school it placed him at.
59. There was clearly a dispute between the various parties about the suitability of the school and this is something I cannot resolve. It is not my place to make a decision about whether the school was suitable or not and I cannot criticise the merits of the Council’s decision. Mr and Mrs B had the right to appeal the EHCP, including the school that was named.
60. Any concerns about the school not sharing the EHCP with the teacher is an internal matter within the school and is therefore not within my jurisdiction to investigate.
61. I note, however, that the delay in completing the reassessment, meant Mr and Mrs B did not have appeal rights against the school named in the EHCP, until several months later than should have been the case.

Complaint response

62. I find fault in how the Council dealt with Mr B’s complaint.
63. In Mr B’s complaint he asked the Council to provide a total of £3,600 for Y’s missed therapy, £20,000 in compensation for the distress caused, and £3,280 to reimburse solicitors fees. I understand the large amount of money requested and the reference to compensation led the Council to treat it as a claim, rather than a complaint. However, there was no indication within the complaint letter that this was a formal letter before claim or that Mr B intended to start legal proceedings. Mr B was clear he wanted the Council to deal with the matter as part of its complaint procedure.
64. The response from the Council’s insurer says Mr B has not identified any specific legal basis for his claim. The reason for that is that it was never intended as a legal claim. Mr B’s reference to compensation was only an example of frequently used terminology. He was not asking for damages for personal injury or any other recognised negligence claim and that was clear from his letter.
65. There is no reason the Council should not have responded to Mr B’s letter as part of its complaint procedure. While the complaint procedure cannot provide compensation in the formal legal sense, it can consider requests for a monetary remedy for loss of service and distress. The Ombudsman regularly recommends such remedies.
66. The Council, in line with its complaint procedure, should have considered a) whether it accepted fault on the various issues Mr B raised, b) if so, what the impact was on the family, and c) what, if any, remedy it considered appropriate. If it accepted fault, it would have been for the Council to decide whether the amount Mr B requested was appropriate. If Mr B was then dissatisfied with the Council’s remedy, it was open to him to raise that complaint with the Ombudsman. Or he could initiate legal proceedings if he felt there were grounds to do so.

Consideration of Remedy

67. I have found fault in the following areas:
• Not providing services set out in the EHCP, including OT and SALT therapy
• The delay and communication issues in reviewing/re-assessing Y’s EHCP
• Not investigating Mr B’s complaint under the Council’s complaint procedure
68. I recommend the Council apologise for the fault identified. Mr B has asked that the Chief Executive and Leader of the Council both sign a public letter of apology. The Ombudsman investigates local authorities from an organisational point of view. I can therefore only recommend the Council apologise and cannot specify who within the organisation provides that apology.
69. The injustice from the first point of fault, is the detrimental impact missing services had on Y’s education and associated distress to Y and his family. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says we may recommend a financial sum for each month of missed education provision or support. The amount will depend on the level of harm. One factor that may have an impact is which school year the child was in, for example if they were in their GSCE year.
70. I can only consider the time between Y moving to the Council’s area in September 2018 and finalising of the new EHCP, in July 2019. This is because I cannot criticise the final EHCP the Council put in place. It was the Council’s decision and, although the tribunal recommended a changed plan, this does not necessarily mean there was fault in how the Council arrived at the original plan. The family had appeal rights against the new EHCP. I appreciate it took time for the tribunal to take place, but I cannot make any findings about the contents of the plan during this period.
71. There are conflicting accounts from the family and the Council about how much harm was caused by the lack of services in the 2018/19 school year. Mr and Mrs B say this drastically set Y back in his education and caused him significant distress. The Council on the other hand say Y’s school consistently reported that he was happy and progressing in his education. There are also slightly different views from each of the therapists engaged at different stages.
72. I cannot resolve this conflict in the evidence entirely. However, I note the tribunal accepted evidence from therapists that indicated Y had not progressed as well as hoped in certain areas of his development while at the school. It accepted an amended EHCP that had a more significant package of support than that Y received while at the school, closer to his original EHCP, which suggests Y did not receive the support he needed while at the school. It is very likely this would have had a negative impact on Y’s development. I note this was not Y’s final year, but the year before that, so was still a relatively significant year in his education.
73. Also, the injustice from the second point is primarily that Y went without services for longer than he may have done otherwise and the delay in Mr B being able to appeal. The tribunal would always have taken a significant amount of time, but the delay meant it took longer before Mr B could legally challenge the lack of provision and also the suitability of the school.
74. With the above factors in mind, I am of the view the injustice is in the higher range, and recommend the Council pay Mr B £500 for each month of Y’s missed therapies and support for the full 2018/19 school year, of approximately 10 months. The total therefore being £5,000.
75. Mr B has asked for £20,000 in compensation for distress. This is not a figure I can recommend. We cannot recommend damages in the same way that a court would in a negligence claim. Our guidance on remedies says we will normally recommend an amount of £100 to £300 to recognise distress, or more when the fault and resulting injustice is significant. In this case I accept that all three elements of fault caused significant distress to the family, due to the impact of delay, lost services and concern about Y’s education. I therefore recommend the Council pay Mr B £750 to recognise the distress caused by the delay, the loss of services, the impact on Y’s education, and the refusal to consider the complaint in line with the complaint procedure.
76. I cannot recommend the Council reimburse the family’s legal fees. Mr B disagreed with the final EHCP the council produced, so would always have challenged this at tribunal, instructed a solicitor and incurred costs. I understand Mr B considers the Council blocked access of professional witnesses to the school, which incurred additional legal fees. However, as outlined at Paragraph 84, I cannot make any findings about whether the Council should have allowed professionals access to the school. Any decisions about the apportionment of legal costs were a matter for the tribunal.
77. The Council’s response suggests it does not have systems in place to ensure students transferring to its area continue to receive the support outlined in their existing EHCP, while any review is ongoing. I recommend the Council review and update its procedures in this respect.
78. I also recommend the Council revise its complaint procedure, to ensure it investigates complaints under that procedure, unless it is clear the person intends their correspondence as a letter before claim.

Back to top

Agreed action

79. The Council has agreed to, within a month of this decision:
• Apologise to Mr B for the fault identified
• Pay Mr B £5,000 in respect of Y’s missed therapies and support
• Pay Mr B £750 to recognise the distress caused
80. I also recommend that, within three months of this decision, the Council:
• Review its procedures for when students with EHCP’s transfer to its area from another local authority. Update that procedure to ensure it has systems in place to provide the support outlined in those students’ existing EHCPs, until such time as the Council completes any review and issues a new EHCP
• Review and update its complaint procedure to ensure it investigates complaints where the person has asked for a monetary remedy, unless it is clear the correspondence is a letter before claim, and to clarify that with the person making the complaint if necessary

Back to top

Final decision

81. The Council is at fault for delay in completing a reassessment, not providing services outlined in Y’s EHCP and for not considering Mr B’s complaint under its complaint procedure.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

82. I have not investigated whether there was fault in Council’s assessment of needs, or the provision set out in its final EHCP in July 2019. The Council based its decision on the information it obtained from professionals. I cannot criticise the merits of that decision and the decision was appealable to the tribunal. Mr B did appeal, so I cannot investigate that element of the complaint. I can only consider whether there was fault in the delay in obtaining the information.
83. I also have not investigated whether the Council was at fault in denying access for independent professional witnesses, to the school. This was as part of the tribunal procedure, and any disagreements about access for witnesses was a matter for the tribunal. I can see Mr B’s solicitor informed the Council that if access was not allowed, they would make an application to the tribunal. This was the appropriate way of addressing any issues of this nature. I cannot consider what happened as part of the tribunal procedure and therefore cannot consider this element of the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman