Summary: Mrs X complained of delays within the Education, Health and Care plan review process for her child. She also says the Council wrongly refused to amend the name on her child’s plan, after they changed their name by deed poll. I have discontinued this investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice to warrant our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
• delayed issuing a final Education, Health and Care plan (EHC plan) once it had decided to amend it following her child’s annual review; and
• refused to amend the name on her child’s EHC plan for 15 months, after they changed their name by deed poll.
2. She says the Council’s actions have caused stress and uncertainty for her and her child. She wants the Council to apologise and provide a financial remedy for the distress and uncertainty caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We can decide whether to start or discontinue an investigation into a complaint within our jurisdiction. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• 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
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke with her about it on the phone.
6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
7. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Education, Health and Care plans

8. Some children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities will have an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). The EHC Plan identifies a child’s education, health and social needs and sets out the extra support needed to meet those needs.
9. Legislation and the Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice (the Code) set out the EHC needs assessment and plan development process. The Code includes statutory timescales which councils must meet.
10. A council must review a child’s EHC plan at least every 12 months. After the review meeting, the council must tell the child’s parents whether it intends to maintain, amend or discontinue the plan within 4 weeks.
11. If it intends to amend the plan, the Code does not state a specific timescale but says the council must start this process “without delay”. The council must then send the parents a copy of the EHC plan with a notice of proposed amendments. The parents then have a chance to make representation about the content of the plan or the proposed amendments.
12. The council must issue the final amended plan within 8 weeks of the date it sent the proposed amendments to the parents.

What happened

13. Mrs X’s child, Y, has an Education, Health and Care plan (EHC plan). In 2019, Y changed their surname by deed poll. Mrs X told the Council this and asked it to change the name on Y’s EHC plan.
14. The Council told Mrs X it could not do this, as the EHC plan was a legal document and the name on the plan was correct at the time the Council issued it. It said it could not retrospectively change the name on the plan.
15. In October 2020, the Council held an EHC plan review meeting. Four weeks later, the Council sent Mrs X a letter, which it has since said was notification of its intention to amend Y’s EHC plan. The letter was titled “Notice of proposed amendments”, but the content of the letter stated that, following the annual review, the Council had decided Y’s plan needed amending. It said: “we are in the process of drafting an amended EHC Plan and will send this to you as soon as possible”. Mrs X says, because the letter was entitled Notice of proposed amendments, the Council should have issued the final amended plan within 8 weeks of this letter.
16. In December 2020, the Council sent Mrs X another letter entitled Notice of proposed amendments. This included a copy of Y’s EHC Plan and the proposed amendments. The Council says this was the letter that started the 8-week timeframe to issue the final amended plan and meant the final amended plan should be issued by mid-February 2021.
17. The Council sent Mrs X the final amended plan in mid-March 2021. This plan was issued in Y’s changed surname. In its final complaint response to Mrs X, the Council said the delay issuing the plan was caused by an administrative error. It apologised to her for this.
18. Mrs X remained unhappy and brought her complaint to us.

Analysis

19. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. I have carefully considered Mrs X’s complaint but have discontinued the investigation for the following reasons.
20. Mrs X says the title of the October letter meant the 8-week timescale to finalise the plan should have started at that point. However, despite the title of the letter, the letter clearly stated that it was notification of the Council’s intention to amend the plan, and that it would now start that process. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify further investigation of this point.
21. There was a three-week delay issuing the final plan, which Mrs X says caused her and Y distress. The Council has acknowledged this delay in its complaint response, explained the reason for it and apologised to her for this. This is an appropriate response to remedy any injustice caused and further investigation would achieve nothing further.
22. Although Mrs X says the Council’s refusal to change the name on Y’s EHC plan for 15 months caused her and Y distress, I do not consider this significant enough to warrant further investigation. The Council and Y’s school were aware Y had changed his name and Y continued to receive the provision in the plan. Although Mrs X says there were occasions Y needed to present his EHC plan to third parties which caused him distress, a verbal explanation or a cover letter explaining the name difference would have been sufficient to minimise any distress caused on these occasions. The Council has now changed the name in Y’s plan as part of its amendments and so further investigation would achieve nothing more.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have discontinued this investigation. There is insufficient evidence of fault causing significant injustice to warrant our involvement and further investigation would achieve nothing more.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman