Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mrs X’s complaints about the content or delivery of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan because she appealed to a tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate her complaints about the delivery of the EHC Plan or a failure to organise alternative provision for an earlier period because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to:
1. organise alternative education for her child, Y, when they were unable to attend school from late March 2025;
2. secure the content of her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan from September 2025;
3. name suitable educational provision/ placement in Y’s EHC Plan.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused her frustration and distress. Mrs X wants the Council to name “Education Other Than in a School” (EOTAS) in the EHC Plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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.
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. 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 provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Late March 2025 to September 2025

8. Mrs X has a child, Y, who has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
9. Mrs X withdrew Y from the named school in section I of their EHC Plan in late March 2025 citing several concerns she had with the school. Mrs X de-registered Y and the school “off-rolled” Y.
10. In June 2025 an EHC annual review of Y’s EHC Plan took place.
11. In its complaint response the Council informed Mrs X it was of the view that Y’s needs could be met in a mainstream school, and it was her decision to remove Y from the school named in section I. Therefore, no alternative provision or “section 19” duty was owed.
12. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions for this period to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.

September 2025 – delivery of EHC Plan and naming unsuitable placement

13. Following the EHC annual review the Council sent Mrs X a new final EHC Plan which named “Elective Home Education” as the basis for the provision. Mrs X disagreed with the content of the EHC Plan and appealed to the SEND Tribunal.
14. We cannot investigate the making or delivery of the EHC Plan. This is because the content of the EHC Plan has now been appealed to the SEND Tribunal. The issues complained about are too closely linked to the matter appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal will now decide how Y’s educational provision will be delivered (either in a school or via EOTAS).
15. Consequently, we cannot investigate these complaints.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We cannot investigate part of Mrs X’s complaints because she appealed to a tribunal. We will not investigate the remainder because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman