Summary: The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a delay in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. The delay did not cause a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Mrs X, says the Council delayed in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan for her child, B.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word 'fault' to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
• the injustice is not significant enough to justify the cost of our involvement, or
• it is unlikely we could add to any previous investigation by the Council, or
• it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered the information Mrs X provided with her complaint and the Council’s responses to her, which she provided. I considered Mrs X’s comments on a draft version of this decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background events

4. Mrs X’s child, B, has additional learning needs. A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
5. The Council issued an EHC plan in September 2018. Mrs X believed it did not meet B’s needs. She appealed the wording to the Tribunal. In January 2019, the Council, and Mrs X, came to an agreement. B started at Mrs X’s preferred school on the same day.
6. The Tribunal’s consent order confirming the agreement is dated eight days later.
7. The Tribunal regulations say the final EHC plan following a consent order should be issued within five weeks, which is 35 days. Here the Council issued the EHC plan ten days past that 35 day limit. Mrs X believes the delay is more than ten days. She believes the 35 days start from the date the consent order’s agreement. This would make the delay 18 days.
8. Mrs X says the delay mean the date on the front page and the review dates were not known. She also says Section A had not been fully completed.
9. Mrs X complained to the Council. She does not accept the Council’s explainantion for the delays. She says the delays caused the family anxiety. She says this added to the delays during the assessment process which were the subject of a separate complaint. She says the school was unable to provide the full support for the length of the delay.

Analysis

10. We will not invesigate complaints when the alleged loss or injustice is not a serious or significant matter. Here 10 to 18 days delay in the school getting the full final EHC plan is not significant enough to justify an investigation. Part of that time was during school holidays. And B was in school for the whole term time.

Back to top

Final decision

11. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because the alleged personal injustice is not significant enough.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman