Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council not writing an Education Health and Care Plan as agreed in an appeal settlement. She has not been caused any significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council failed to amend an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) accurately following a Tribunal and this caused her to appeal home to school transport provision.

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:
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council who provided the home to school transport papers.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. B was born in July 2019. B’s compulsory school age means they do not have to be in school until September 2024. However, in line with normal policy, the Council offered a school place from September 2023.
7. B has additional learning needs. The Council assessed B for an EHC Plan. Mrs X did not agree with how this was worded. She felt it did not meet B’s needs. She appealed to the Tribunal. The Council settled the case before the final hearing. The Tribunal consent order referred to the EHC Plan being in the terms set out in ‘version 9’. Mrs X says the EHC Plan the Council produced following that Tribunal did not accurately reflect ‘version 9’. In particular it said she was responsible for the home to school transport. She says this was not in ‘version 9’.
8. The Council refused to provide home to school transport and Mrs X appealed to the Council’s home to school transport internal appeal body. In October 2023, the appeal body agreed that B should have home to school transport. It said it had to be provided from July 2024 onwards, when B’s compulsory school age was triggered, as the Council had been wrong to write the EHC Plan in the way it had. But before then it said it would give discretionary transport.
9. Mrs X says she should not have had to appeal. She says the EHC Plan has not been amended properly following its annual review and she will now appeal again to the Tribunal.

Analysis

10. We will not investigate whether the current EHC Plan is correct as Mrs X has or had a right of appeal which it is reasonable to expect her to use.
11. We will not investigate the delay in the Autumn term of 2023 of B obtaining home to school transport. B was not of compulsory school age and therefore even if the EHC Plan had been written as she believes it should, the Council still did not have to provide home to school transport. And she may still have had to use the internal home to school transport appeals process.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we will not investigate issues which Mrs X can appeal to the Tribunal. And there is no significant injustice caused by the Council potentially not writing the EHC Plan as agreed in settling a Tribunal appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman