Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council tried to change the placement on her son’s EHCP without consultation or agreement. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response and explanation already provided by the Council’s response on this matter.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Miss X, complains the Council tried to change the placement on her son’s EHCP (Education, Health and Care Plan) without consultation or agreement, by only agreeing to 12 months funding.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start an investigation if the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. We do not start an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the Council. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complains on behalf of her son, Mr Y, who is a young adult. Miss X complains the Council has tried to unilaterally change the placement on Mr Y’s EHCP without consultation or agreement.
7. Miss X says this is causing them undue stress and worry and she is unable to reassure Mr Y about what will happen with his placement next year as the Council has only agreed funding for 12 months. Miss X is worried this means she will need to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal next year.
8. Miss X would like the Council to agree to fund Mr Y’s placement beyond the next 12 months and until he reaches the outcomes in his EHCP, which she estimates would be for at least three years.
9. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council said there had been no attempt to change the EHCP. The panel’s funding decision related to the ongoing joint funding which was agreed for 12 months. It said this 12 month period would ensure there was sufficient opportunity to consider and explore other accommodation and support options and would enable the practitioner to work with Mr Y, and those supporting him, to determine his longer term accommodation needs. It said this forward planning was crucial to ensure there was an appropriate plan in place to support Mr Y in moving on and with clear outcomes in place. Once the right option is identified for Mr Y, it will present his case to the panel for agreement.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because an investigation by this office could not add to the response and explanation of its decision already provided by the Council’s response on this matter.
11. Miss X is already aware of her right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal should she disagree with the Council’s decision on Mr Y’s EHCP next year.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman