Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make suitable educational provision for the complainant’s daughter. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council has failed to make suitable educational provision for her daughter since October 2024.

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 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))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (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 the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X’s daughter has special educational needs and an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. Mis X says her daughter has not attended school since October 2024. She complains that neither the Council nor her daughter’s school have accepted responsibility for the matter and, as a result, her daughter’s education and wellbeing have suffered.
8. The complaint correspondence shows that Miss X’s daughter’s needs have been considered during the Annual Review of the EHC plan. During the process Miss X expressed a preference for a place for her daughter at an alternative school. The Council declined this request, and decided instead to take steps to work towards reintegrating her into the school named on the EHC plan with a package of alternative educational provision.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part. Miss X may disagree with the Council’s view that her daughter’s current school can meet her needs, but that does not mean the decision amounts to fault. It is a matter for the professional judgement of the Council’s officers, not the Ombudsman.
10. If Miss X wants different provision of a different school named in her daughter’s EHC plan, her recourse is to use her right to appeal to the Tribunal, and it would be reasonable for her to do so. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman