Child Was Failed. The Failure Was Acknowledged. Yet Apparently Nobody Is Accountable.
My experience of the LGSCO has seriously undermined my confidence in its ability to hold public bodies accountable. The Ombudsman accepted that provision specified in my child’s EHCP was not delivered. My child’s difficulties escalated, he was repeatedly suspended for behaviour associated with unmet SEND needs, and ultimately there was a significant breakdown in his ability to access education. Yet the Local Authority was found not to be at fault because it “reasonably believed” the provision was being delivered. On what evidence was that belief reasonable? The Local Authority has been unable to produce a meaningful audit trail showing that it monitored delivery: no evidence of systematic checks, verification of Section F provision, or meaningful challenge when a child with an EHCP was repeatedly being suspended and his education was visibly deteriorating. A statutory duty to secure provision cannot sensibly mean simply believing somebody else is delivering it without checking. I was also deeply concerned by the evidential approach taken. Assertions from the school appeared to be accepted despite evidence I supplied challenging them. Most concerningly, material relating to a safeguarding concern/outcome has been withheld from me, leaving me unable to scrutinise potentially relevant evidence while conclusions have nevertheless been reached about what occurred. The contradiction is stark: the provision was legally required; it was not delivered; the Local Authority was responsible for securing it; there is no meaningful evidence it monitored delivery; the warning signs included repeated suspensions and escalating difficulties — yet the authority was not at fault. If that amounts to sufficient oversight of a statutory duty, it is difficult to understand what meaningful protection that duty provides. My child was failed. The failure is acknowledged. Yet somehow nobody responsible for ensuring the provision was delivered is accountable for it. For an organisation intended to provide independent scrutiny and administrative justice, I find that outcome profoundly concerning.