The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The complainants alleged that the Council failed to provide alternative full-time education when their daughter was unable to attend school because of her medical needs. We have found fault by the Council causing an injustice and recommended a way to remedy this. The Council has accepted this. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.
The complaint
The complainants, who I refer to as Mr and Mrs X, complained about services provided to their daughter, (B), who has special educational needs. The complainants made several complaints to the Ombudsman. But, having considered all the information, I have only investigated the following complaints.
Mr and Mrs X complained that the Council: failed to provide full-time education for B from 29 September 2020 to June 2021; failed to share or manage advice it received from the National Health Service (NHS) for B’s ECH Plan; refused to reimburse the parents for a laptop they bought so that B could access online provision; used discriminatory language which caused the family offence and made insulting comments about costs; failed to manage the complaint effectively.
As a result, Mr and Mrs X say that B missed out on education with her peers which had a negative impact on her social and educational development, the family were caused stress, and time and trouble which led to ill health for one parent and caused them to lose trust in the Council. Mrs X says that she had to give up work and has not been able to return. The Council’s faults also affected the time they could give to their older child who has special educational needs.
What I have investigated I have investigated matters between 30 September 2020 to June 2021, when B started at her special school. During this period, B was subject to an EHC Plan, and the Council had a duty to ensure the special educational provision was made.
Matters, which I have not investigated, are set out in the last paragraph of this statement. Broadly these cover complaints which were either subject to a Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal (the Tribunal), were matters considered by the Information Commissioner or they are complaints which will be considered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) The Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal deals with disputes about assessments and provision for special educational needs. The Court of Appeal confirmed in R v Commission for Local Administration, ex parte Field [1999] EWHC 754 (Admin) that we cannot consider a complaint when the complainant has pursued an alternative remedy, for example by appeal to the SEND Tribunal.
However, we can look at the consequences of any delay by a council in issuing the final EHC Plan, the consequences of any fault prior to the time the appeal right was triggered and whether a council has ensured the EHC provision has been provided.
We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b)) 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) Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
How I considered this complaint
I spoke to Mrs X on the telephone and made enquiries of the Council. Mr and Mrs X have commented on what the Council has said.
B is known to the NHS Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and Mr and Mrs X have made a complaint about their actions. We have considered whether we should carry out a joint investigation with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). But we have decided that the health and education complaints are sufficiently separate.
The Council considered Mr and Mrs X’s complaint under its two stage complaints procedure, issuing a stage one response in October 2021 and a stage two response in February 2022.
I issued a draft decision statement to both Mr and Mrs X and to the Council. Mrs X spoke to me on the telephone with further comments, disputing some of the information provided by the Council. I issued an amended draft decision statement to the Council and to the complainants. Mr and Mrs X referred to two other Ombudsman complaints whose findings they thought should be taken into account. I have done so before reaching my final decision.
What I found
Special Educational Needs A child with special educational needs may have an EHC plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. Part 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and the SEND code of practice: 0 to 25 years give council’s information about its duties. Councils must make sure the provision in a child’s EHC Plan is secured.
Annual reviews Councils oversee delivery of EHC Plans through annual reviews, whether by attending meetings themselves, or by reviewing the school’s records of meetings. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice January 2015 (the Code) says reviews must be undertaken in partnership with the child and their parent.
EHC Plans must be reviewed, as a minimum, every 12 months. The review must consider whether the stated outcomes and supporting targets in the Plan remain appropriate.
After the review, the council has four weeks to send the child’s parents its decision about whether the EHC Plan is to continue; whether it needs changing or if it is to end. If the council decides to amend the EHC Plan, it must do that “without delay”.
Parents can ask for an earlier review if they believe the EHC Plan does not adequately address the child’s needs and/or the named provision is not meeting needs. There is no right of appeal if a council refuses to allow an earlier review. Parents can also ask for a reassessment of the child’s needs if there has been a significant change in the child’s needs. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal if the council refuses this.
Parents and young people can request a council provides a personal budget for special educational provision in an EHC plan and request direct payments. The request must be made when the draft EHC plan is being prepared, reviewed or re-assessed. (The Special Educational Needs (Personal Budget) Regulations 2014 Section 4(1)). Councils are under a duty to prepare a budget when asked to do so.
Children out of school because of medical needs Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 (‘s19’) says “councils must make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at a school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless arrangements are made for them”.
Councils should provide suitable full-time education (or as much education as the child’s health condition allows) as soon as it is clear the child will be away from school for 15 days or more (consecutively or cumulatively) and make every effort to minimise the disruption to a child’s education.
The Children, Schools and Families Act 2010 clarified that this should be full-time or part-time education if considered in the child’s best interests.
Government statutory guidance of January 2013 ‘Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs’ states that councils are responsible for arranging suitable full-time education for children who because of illness would not receive education. This applies whether the child is on the roll of a school and whatever the type of school the child attends. There is no legal deadline to start this provision, but it should be arranged as soon as it is clear a child will be absent from school for health reasons for more than fifteen school days.
If the council has arranged for the provision of education which is suitable for a child and which he/she is reasonably able to attend, a council would not be under a duty to provide alternative suitable education, simply because, for one reason or another, the child is not taking advantage of the existing facility.
In R v Croydon Council [2015], the issue was whether a child of compulsory school age could reasonably be expected to attend the school. The Court decided that, where a child or young person had a medical reason or special educational needs, which explained the non-attendance, a council’s duty to arrange alternative education would be triggered, and alternative provision should be made pending finding a suitable school.
The Council’s policy on alternative education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs The Council’s policy says that it must arrange suitable full-time education, or as much as the pupil’s health condition allows. The Council has delegated the responsibility for the education of children with additional needs to its ‘hospital school’. Initially six weeks provision is offered. Re-integration into school is always anticipated. Pupils will be dual registered, and schools must not remove the child from the school roll.
The Council policy says that responsibility for children remains with the school. However, the Council retains responsibility for providing a strategy to ensure appropriate provision is available and in place. In all cases, the nature of any intervention, the objectives, the expected outcomes and timeline to achieve these, should be made clear.
Facts of this case The following chronology is intended to provide only a basic overview of the events relevant to this complaint. It will not detail everything which happened.
B started at a mainstream secondary school (School C) in 2018 before the extent of her special educational needs were known. Her attendance started to deteriorate and in early 2020 B was struggling to cope at school. Mr and Mrs X arranged for B to have a private neurodevelopmental assessment because of the long wait for CAMHS to undertake this. In March 2020, B was diagnosed with autism (ASD), Pathological Avoidance Demand (PDA-children and young people avoid demands and expectations to an extreme extent), traits of Attention Deficient Hyper Disorder (ADHD-children and young people have problems in concentrating) as well as episodes of low mood, anxiety and self-harm.
The Council agreed to assess B’s special educational need. In April 2020, CAMHS sent some information to the Council, which Mr and Mrs X say was not shared with them. The Council has said that there is no evidence to support this complaint. On September 2020 the Council issued a final EHC Plan, setting out the provision which must be made for B (at section F of the EHC Plan) and naming School C as the appropriate placement.
Mrs X says that the Council is wrong to say that the CAMHS evidence was shared with them. She only found out about the report in December 2021. The CAMHS appendix, attached to the final EHC Plan, were just appointment letters. Mrs X says that, if they had seen this report in April 2020, they would have withdrawn B from School C sooner and therefore would have asked for alternative education sooner. Mr and Mrs X will include CAMHS’ failure to send its report to them in April 2020 as part of their PHSO complaint.
Mr and Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal on receipt of the final EHC Plan. Matters relating to that appeal concerning the description of special educational needs, the provision required and the timetabling of amending B’s EHC Plan, are not part of this investigation.
B was sent home at the end of September 2020 by School C because she was unwell. Mr and Mrs X stopped sending B to School C, after this time, because they say she could not cope there, her self-harm was increasing, and School C could not keep her safe or meet her needs.
B’s EHC Plan stated that B required a teaching assistant with experience of working with pupils who have ASD and PDA with guidance from a specialist teacher. It also stated B must have a sensory programme daily for ten minutes with the programme devised and monitored by an Occupational Therapist (OT).
The Council says that initially, when B did not return to School C, it sought to provide education by seeking a placement for B at a ‘hospital’ school, which caters for pupils with medical needs and is managed by the Council but run by a local school. It provides individual learning packages. Mr and Mrs X say that B was twice refused a place at the hospital school (even though there was a place available) until she was offered a place in mid-November 2020. There were no other offers of education in the meantime. Mr and Mrs X consider that the Council’s duty to provide alternative education was triggered as soon as B was out of school in September 2020.
B’s placement at the hospital school in November only lasted one week as Mr and Mrs X felt it was increasing her anxiety and suicidal ideation. Mrs X says that there was a place available for B at the hospital school, so B could have been placed there sooner. Had this happened, they would have learnt sooner that the hospital school was unsuitable. Again, this would have meant they would have asked for alternative education earlier.
In November 2020, Mr and Mrs X asked for a personal budget to provide Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) and asked for a laptop. The Council’s Panel decided that, as B was still on the roll of School C, it should provide the laptop. School C did so in mid-December, but Mr and Mrs X say that B could not cope with the idea of having a laptop from her previous school because it triggered her anxiety. They bought her a laptop but without first agreeing this with the Council. The Council says that it returned the laptop to School C. The Council says that it worked with School C to try to secure remote learning for B. But Mr and Mrs X did not consider this was appropriate.
On 8 December 2020 there was a review of B’s EHC Plan. The Council originally said that it did not have the minutes of this meeting. But it has now confirmed that these were received in January 2021. Mr and Mrs X sent a copy of the minutes to the Ombudsman, which is called ‘EHCP Review’. In attendance was an officer from the Council’s special educational needs (SEN) department along with School C staff, a CAMHS worker, an officer from the hospital school, the Educational Psychologist and Mr and Mrs X. The purpose of the meeting was stated to be ‘to review B’s EHC Plan’. Mr and Mrs X say the minutes were taken by the hospital school officer but are inaccurate and do not contain all the relevant information. No reports were requested from the professionals involved with B, before the meeting, as should have happened.
The Council says the minutes were considered by the SEN and Educational Welfare departments although Mr and Mrs X were unaware of this at the time. It remains a concern to them that the Council initially said that there were no such minutes.
The hospital school agreed to end B’s placement and it was agreed that B’s EHC Plan needed updating. Mr and Mrs X told the Council that they considered an EOTAS package was required for the time being. The CAMHS worker raised a concern about B being out of school, but it is recorded that Mr and Mrs X said that they would home school as an interim measure. Mr and Mrs X arranged a Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) assessment. The Council subsequently reimbursed them. Mr and Mrs X say that the SALT information was crucial, and the Council should have arranged this sooner.
Mrs X says that they did not say they were home educating. Indeed, they wrote to the Council saying that they were not home educating, and they did not remove B from the school roll until EOTAS was offered.
The Council says that it offered an EOTAS package in March 2021 to cover the period of April to July 2021. It offered a personal budget in mid-April 2021. It seems that the personal budget was to provide sport, arts and cookery rather than education. The Council says that B was removed from School C’s roll in April 2021. Mrs X says that they have no complaints about the EOTAS package. However, Mr and Mrs X say that they had to take responsibility for ensuring B received some education and socialisation.
Mrs X had to give up work in September 2020 to care for B. Mr and Mrs X consider that the Council failed to understand properly that B has extensive difficulties, was suffering from suicidal ideation and was not safe at School C. Mr and Mrs X consider that they had to provide care to B when not in education, (when she should have been) and the Ombudsman should recommend a symbolic payment to recognise this additional and avoidable care which the parents had to provided and which them considerable difficulties. Mr and Mrs X say that providing additional care by parents for a child out of school was recognised in an Ombudsman report (20 010 112) and a remedy provided.
During the Tribunal process, Mr and Mrs X say Council officers used discriminatory language and complained about the costs when they were seeking travel costs to a new school placement. Mr and Mrs X say that the Council said these costs would have a significant impact and this added to the parents’ anxiety and distress.
The Council’s complaint response Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s actions in September 2021.
In the stage one October 2021 complaint response, the Council said that B remained on roll of School C until April 2021. It was satisfied that there was no evidence to say that B was without access to education during this period. In November 2020, after it was clear the hospital school could not provide for B, the Council said that School C offered online education. The Council accepted it took time to agree a suitable EOTAS package and said that it would be looking to improve its commissioning of such packages.
The Council maintains that School C was providing access to online learning. The Council took steps to provide alternative education under s19 by offering a place at the hospital school. When this proved unsuccessful, School C provided online learning and the Council says that it was not told that B was unable to access this. Mrs X says that they had to chase up the Council to ensure B received some education after she left the hospital school.
The Council says that its policy is clear in acknowledging its responsibility to provide alternative education even if the child remains on the school roll. But the Council accepts that not all the provision set out in B’s EHC Plan was provided.
The Council apologised for referring to the fact it had to be mindful of costs when Mr and Mrs X asked in May 2021 for travel cost to a new school. It also apologised if Mr and Mrs X felt that discriminatory language was used. But it was satisfied that its staff were properly trained in equality issues.
Mr and Mrs X made a complaint to the Ombudsman. We referred it back to the Council because it had not been considered at the Council’s second stage.
In February 2022, the stage two response endorsed the finding that at no time was B without offers of education. The letter stated that the Council took account of all professional advice and therefore it did not uphold the complaint that advice about B’s needs were ignored. The letter confirmed that the Council had reimbursed the cost of the private SALT assessment, which it seems the Council accepted it should have arranged.
The Council had not recouped the personal budget (paid up to July 2021) when B started at her new placement in June 2021. Mrs X says that B attended the new school for two days per week at the end of the summer term but was not formally placed on the school roll until September 2021.
Mrs X says that she had to chase up the complaint responses and had to refer the Council’s lack of response to the Ombudsman Findings: Failure to provide suitable education between 29 September 2020 to June 2021 It is clear from B’s September 2020 EHC Plan that she has complex special educational needs which were not fully known when she started at School C. By the end of September 2020, B’s difficulties were known and that she posed a risk to herself. Mr and Mrs X’s prime concern was to keep B safe, and they considered her placement at School C could not do this.
The Council considered B would be better placed at the hospital school, which would have the expertise to deal with young people with medical needs. But it took six weeks before a place was available, and then it transpired that Mr and Mrs X considered the placement was not suitable. Had B been offered this place sooner- my view is that she should have been offered this after fifteen days of school absence and it is fault it was not- it would have been apparent sooner that the hospital school place was not suitable.
After the hospital school placement broke down, Mr and Mrs X asked for a personal budget and they decided, in the best interests of their daughter, that EOTAS was appropriate to give her time to recover while a more suitable school was sought through the Tribunal process. The Council did not agree EOTAS for another four school months (December 2020 to April 2021). That too is avoidable delay which the Council accepts, and my view is that this too amounts to fault.
The Council says that it is satisfied that at no point was B without access to education. While she remained on roll at School C, the Council considered it had met its duty to ensure B received education, even though B was not taking up the offer of that education. Once off the school roll in April 2021, the Council then agreed the EOTAS package.
I am satisfied that the Council met its duty to provide alternative education (under s19) by offering a place to B at the hospital school, although it was some six weeks before a place was allocated. When this hospital school placement failed, the Council says it met its s19 duty by School C providing online learning and it was unaware that B was not accessing this. However, it accepts that this online learning did not provide the full extent of B’s provision set out in the EHC Plan.
My view is that, while the Council met its s19 duty to provide alternative education by asking School C to provide this (be it online or face to face), the Council should have been monitoring the alternative education provision to ensure it was being provided, was suitable and it was being kept under review. However, the Council has said it was unaware B was not accessing the online learning. My view is that it should have been aware and, in accordance with its policy, there should have been a strategy to ensure appropriate education was available and in place. So, my view is that the Council has been at fault.
The Council eventually agreed EOTAS in March 2021 and the personal budget was provided from April 2021. But I also consider that the EOTAS package and the personal budget could have been provided sooner, say by December 2020, given Mr and Mrs X had asked for this in November and, by this stage, B had been without education for two months.
Therefore, my view is that there have been some delays and B has missed out on alternative education, primarily between December 2020 to March 2021, and missed out on having a strategy to keep this under review. This amounts to fault.
Prior to this the Council arranged for B to attend the hospital school which on the face of it could have met B’s complex needs. While there was a delay in offering B a place at the hospital school, the Council had recognised that it had a duty to make alternative provision.
Failure to share or manage advice it received from the NH CAMHS for B’s EHC Plan The Council says that there is no evidence to support this complaint. Information from CAMHS was attached to B’s final EHC Plan as appendices which Mr and Mrs X would have had access to. However, evidence has come to light that the appendix relating to CAMHS consisted of appointment letters. However, I consider CAMHS had the prime responsibility to share its report with Mr and Mrs X. So, on that basis, I do not find fault by the Council.
Initially I found the Council at fault for not having the minutes of the EHC Plan review of December 2020. But the Council has said it did have these and they were considered. Therefore, my view is that there is no fault even though Mr and Mrs X seemed to be unaware that the Council had these minutes.
Refused to reimburse the parents for a laptop they bought so that B could access online provision The Council ensured that School C provided a laptop for B to access its online learning. But Mr and Mrs X say that, having a laptop from this school, triggered B’s anxiety. Hence Mr and Mrs X bought a laptop themselves. While I appreciate that they did not want a laptop from School C, which triggered B’s anxiety, they decided to purchase a laptop without first asking the Council to pay for this. So, on balance, I do not think the Council is at fault here.
Used discriminatory language which caused the family offence and made insulting comments about costs I do not think the Council accepts it used discriminatory language, but it has apologised if this is how Mr and Mrs X experienced communication. It does accept that comments about costs were inappropriate and has apologised. I do not think I can achieve more for the complainants.
Failed to manage the complaint effectively The Council correctly told Mr and Mrs X at stage one that it should contact its Customer Feedback department within twenty-one days if dissatisfied. Mr and Mrs X say that they did and, in the absence of progress from the Council, they made a complaint to the Ombudsman. We referred the complaint back to the Council so its complaint procedure could be completed. I recognise that Mr and Mrs X did not agree with the Council’s decision on some aspects of their complaint. That is not evidence of fault. However, it should not have been necessary for Mr and Mrs X to have to contact the Ombudsman for the Council to escalate their complaint to its next stage. On that basis, my view is that there is some fault by the Council here.
How the Ombudsman remedies injustice caused by fault The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies makes the following points: where there has been a loss of education, we normally recommend between £200 to £600 per school month; for injustice such as distress, harm or risk, the complainant cannot usually be put back in the position they would have been, but for the fault. Therefore, we usually recommend a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact of the fault; there must be a clear and direct link between the fault identified and the injustice to be remedied; distress can include uncertainty about how the outcome might have been different; where the avoidable distress was severe or prolonged, up to £1,000 may be justified but we may recommend more in exceptional cases.
We also recently published a focus report about children missing education called ‘Out of school, out of sight? Ensuring children out of school get a good education’. As part of the report, we made several general recommendations for local authorities to help improve performance in this critical area. These recommendations included: Consider the individual circumstances of each case and be aware that the council may need to act whatever the reason for absence (except for the minor issues schools deal with on a day-to-day basis) – and even when a child is on a school roll.
Consult all the professionals involved in a child’s education and welfare and take account of the evidence when making decisions.
Choose (based on all the evidence) whether to require attendance at school or provide the child with suitable alternative education.
Work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to mainstream education as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary.
Put the chosen action into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.
Injustice and remedy I have decided that there were some avoidable delays and B missed out on four months of education and on the special educational provision set out in her EHC Plan. I also consider that the family has been put to avoidable distress by having to chase the Council to ensure they had a personal budget to provide EOTAS.
The complainants also say that Mrs X had to give up work. I appreciate that these are difficult decisions for parents to make and Mrs X felt that she had no other choice. But we would not normally seek to remedy loss of earnings in these situations. The decision is for the parents to make.
I recognise that Mr and Mrs X consider there should be a symbolic payment to recognise that they had to care for B during school hours, which they would not have had to do but for the Council’s failure to provide alternative education.
Each complaint is considered on its individual merits. The 20 010 112 complaint, (which the complainants refer to), is different in that those complainants did not give up work but had to work late at night to make up for the lost work hours during the day, caused by having to care for their primary school age child, who had been excluded from school. In this case, Mrs X chose to give up work and therefore she made herself available during the day to care for B. Neither situation is easy for parents, and it is difficult for parents to work out how best to manage individual circumstances or to know the possible consequences of their decisions. But I do not consider Mrs X’s situation is the same as set out in the 20 010 112 complaint.
Mr and Mrs X also refers to another complaint (18 105 695) against the same Council where it failed to provide alternative education under s19. They consider the problems they experienced are historic and repeated practices. I cannot comment on this. But the Ombudsman has issued the above focus report in an effort to improve SEN practices across all councils.
Agreed actions
Within one month of the final statement, the Council will: pay Mr and Mrs X £2,000 for B’s lost education to be used by them in whatever way they consider appropriate (four months at £500 per school month-December 2020 to March 2021). I recognize the Council considers the remedy should be set at £200 per month because School C had made available online education. But my view is the Council should have been monitoring this and looking to provide the provision set out in B’s EHC Plan. I have set the remedy at £500 per school month, rather than at £600, to recognize some education was offered. I also appreciate that the Council has not recouped the personal budget for July 2021. But it seems that Mr and Mrs X would have bought resources upfront and I do not think this affects the suggested remedy; apologise to Mr and Mrs X in writing for failing to provide the EOTAS package sooner and make a symbolic payment of £500 for the avoidable distress and frustration caused by the faults identified. I have set the amount at £500 because, although the distress was severe, it was not prolonged and some aspects of the complaint (which also would have caused avoidable distress) are outside our jurisdiction or are being dealt with by the PHSO; the Council’s policy is clear that it has a responsibility to provide alternative education even if a child is registered at school. So, the Council has no need to review its policy, as previously recommended, except to remind officers that a school’s alternative education should be kept under review; the Council has told the Ombudsman that it will start developing an EOTAS process so that these packages can be provided promptly in accordance with its s19 duties. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Council has complied with the earlier recommendation that it should do this.
Final decision
There is fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed the recommended actions to remedy the injustice. I have therefore completed my investigation and am closing the complaint.
Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate Mr and Mrs X complained that the Council shared an unredacted copy of B’s EHC Plan with various schools, thereby breaching the family’s privacy. This has been considered by the Information Commissioner and no fault found. It is not appropriate for the Ombudsman to pursue this issue.
Mr and Mrs X complained about the delay in arranging a SALT assessment. They also consider the Council should have arranged this. But it was CAMHS who recommended such an assessment and therefore I consider this is a complaint being considered by the PHSO.
Mr and Mrs X complained about delays in amending the EHC Plan and the Council’s actions during the Tribunal process, including offering an inappropriate school for B, which had not been opened. I have not investigated the delay in amending the EHC Plan or the Council’s school placement offer because the amendments and placement decision were subject to the Tribunal’s consideration and in accordance with its timetable.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman