The IOPC has let Surrey Police investigate complaints about how it closed two SEND misconduct inquiries into county officers, after Horley's MP wrote in.

Surrey Police will investigate complaints about its own handling of two misconduct cases against Surrey County Council officers. The police watchdog decided on 9 October that it did not need to run the inquiry itself.

Both cases concerned children with special educational needs. Both were closed on the same day in August. The complaints followed a letter from Chris Coghlan, the Liberal Democrat MP for Dorking and Horley, who asked the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) to review the force’s decisions.

What Surrey Police says

The force published a statement on 9 October. In it, the force says:

  • Mr Coghlan told the force on 23 September that he had written to the IOPC about “our handling of allegations made against Surrey County Council”.
  • On 24 September the force received two formal complaints about the handling of the investigation.
  • Its Professional Standards Department reviewed them and made a mandatory referral to the IOPC.
  • The IOPC replied on 9 October that the complaints “can be investigated locally by our Professional Standards Department”.

“This process is now underway, and it would be inappropriate to comment any further whilst it is ongoing,” the force said. It added that it would publish the outcome “in due course” and update the complainants first.

What the MP alleges

Mr Coghlan published his letter to the IOPC, dated 23 September, at the request of both complainants. He says on his website that both investigations were for misconduct in public office, and one was also for perjury.

These are the MP’s allegations. None has been tested, and the force has not responded to them in detail.

The letter’s account of the first case:

  • A complaint involving a 10-year-old child with special educational needs was registered in July 2024.
  • An officer told the family on 6 March 2026 that a file was being prepared for the Crown Prosecution Service.
  • A journalist asked the force about the investigation on 7 August. The force confirmed it on 11 August.
  • The letter says the force told the council about the press enquiry “on or before” 17 August. The family had earlier been advised not to alert the people they complained about, in case evidence was destroyed.
  • The case was closed on 17 August. The next day the force told the journalist a review had found “no crime had been committed”.

And of the second:

  • A complaint about the “deliberate obstruction of provision” for a 12-year-old autistic child was made in autumn 2025.
  • The letter says officers told the family not to make a subject access request for the council’s records, because the police would request them.
  • In June 2026 an officer wrote that a file would go to the CPS “for their early consideration”.
  • On 17 August a newly appointed detective chief inspector rang to close the case for “insufficient evidence”. The letter says the council’s records had not been requested, because that was not deemed “proportionate”.
  • The letter says a review meeting was agreed, then cancelled ten minutes later on a senior officer’s instruction. The case was closed at 16:32 that day.
Timeline of the two complaints: first complaint registered July 2024; second made autumn 2025; officers say CPS files are being prepared March to June 2026; journalist enquiry 7 August; both cases closed 17 August; MP writes to the IOPC 23 September; two formal complaints 24 September; mandatory referral to the IOPC; IOPC says the force can investigate locally 9 October
How the two cases ended, from the MP's letter and the force's statement. Graphic by Reigate News
Share this chartFacebookWhatsAppX

“Taken at face value, the stated parameters for investigation set by Surrey Police could appear to set it up to fail,” Mr Coghlan wrote. He said he could give the IOPC evidence once its security was assured.

The letter’s appendix places the officers in the council’s Children, Families and Lifelong Learning department. It names no one, and neither do we.

Why it matters here

Surrey County Council is the special educational needs authority for every family in Reigate and Banstead. Its headquarters is Woodhatch Place, on Cockshot Hill in Reigate. Horley sits in Mr Coghlan’s constituency, and he campaigns on SEND provision.

The cases also bear on how the force works with the council. The letter says that early in the first investigation the force told the family it “might not be the appropriate investigating force due to its close working relationship with Surrey County Council on child protection”.

What it means for you

  • Nobody has been charged, and no wrongdoing has been found. The force closed both criminal investigations. What is now being investigated is how it handled them.
  • The force is investigating itself. The IOPC decided that was acceptable. The force says it will publish the outcome once the complainants have been told.
  • If you have a SEND dispute with the county, this case does not change how you challenge a decision about your child’s support.

We will report the outcome when the force publishes it.

Sources

More from Reigate News: Surrey Police merger survey and the East Surrey Council headquarters at Woodhatch Place.