Summary: We will not investigate this complaint. This is because part of the complaint is late with no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate and the remaining issues are too closely linked to the Council’s decisions on Mr X’s daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan, which it would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his daughter’s educational and special educational needs. He says the Council delayed in communicating with him and provided incorrect information about their request for education otherwise than at school (EOTAS). He also complains the Council failed to respond to their request for a personal budget and refused to fund their preferred option for alternative provision under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996.

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 do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mr X knew about the delay and the Council’s decision not to agree to EOTAS by July 2024. He was also aware by the same date that it had not responded to his request for a personal budget.
10. Mr X complained to the Council about these issues in January 2025 and received a final response in May 2025 but he did not bring the complaint to us until November 2025. His complaint is therefore some six months late.
11. The Council’s final response directed Mr X to the Ombudsman and I have seen no good reasons for the delay in bringing the matter to us. I will not therefore exercise our discretion to investigate this aspect of Mr X’s complaint further.
12. While Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to provide his preferred alternative provision is more recent, the issue is too closely linked to the dispute over the Council’s decision to name his daughter’s existing mainstream school in her EHC Plan for us to investigate it.
13. Where a child or young person is not attending school, such as in this case, and we decide the reason for non-attendance is linked to, or is a consequence of, a parent or young person’s disagreement about the special educational provision or the educational placement in the EHC Plan, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
14. It is clear Mr X disagreed with the Council’s decision to name his daughter’s existing mainstream school in her EHC Plan and felt EOTAS was the only suitable option for her. But its decision carried a right of appeal to the Tribunal which it would have been reasonable for him to use. If therefore Mr X felt the setting was not suitable, or that her EHC Plan should have included the specific provision he felt could meet her needs, he should have taken the matter to the Tribunal.
15. The Council has now agreed to amend the EHC Plan and to provide EOTAS for Mr X’s daughter but it has still not agreed to the specific provision Mr X wanted. In light of the provision agreed by the Council and the amount of time that has passed since its decision, it is in any event unlikely we could determine the impact of the Council’s decision or a suitable remedy even if we did find fault in its handling of the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mr X’s concerns about the Council’s communications and its handling of his personal budget request are late and I have seen no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate them. Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide his preferred alternative provision for his daughter is too closely linked to the Council’s decisions on her EHC Plan for us to investigate the issue separately.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman