Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay issuing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan because the injustice is not significant enough and there is nothing more we could achieve.

The complaint

1. Mr F complains about delay by the Council issuing his daughter G’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. He says the Council’s handling of the case was poor. He complains the delay meant G started her school late. He says this caused considerable stress and he is concerned about the impact on G’s progress and exam results. He wants the Council to pay compensation.

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 impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We cannot investigate parts of a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Mr F, including the Council’s response to his complaint. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In its complaint response, the Council apologised for not meeting the statutory deadline to issue G’s EHC Plan. The Council explained the steps it had taken to increase capacity and avoid delays in the future. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mr F complained to us.
7. Mr F asked the Council to undertake an education, health and care needs assessment in January 2024. The Council refused. Mr F appealed. Following the appeal, the Council informed Mr F it would undertake an assessment in May 2024. The Council issued a draft EHC Plan in September 2024 and a final EHC Plan in October 2024. Unhappy with the plan, Mr F appealed again. Following mediation, the Council issued a further final EHC Plan in December 2024.
8. It was 10 months from Mr F’s request for an assessment until the Council issued a Plan that named the school he wanted for G.
9. However, we can only consider delay that was the result of fault by the Council. We cannot take account of the time taken once a parent appealed. This means there was only 6 weeks of delay for which the Council was responsible. We do not consider this caused sufficient injustice to justify further investigation. In any event, we do not award compensation and could not evaluate the impact of any delay on G’s exam results. The Council has explained how it is addressing the problems which led to the delay, so there is nothing more we could achieve.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr F’s complaint because the apparent fault by the Council has not caused sufficient injustice, and there is nothing further we could achieve.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman