Summary: We will not investigate this complaint against the Council regarding an Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) which was not completed within the relevant time scale. This is because the Council acknowledged fault during its complaints process and there is nothing that we could add to its investigation. The complainant can now further amend the EHCP if she wishes, and if her further amendments are not agreed by the Council, she has the right to go to the Special Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Miss X, complains that the Council:
• Sent her son’s Education and Health Care Plan (EHCP) late after his annual review;
• Failed to evidence her amendments after reviewing the EHCP;
• Took over 6 months to provide the new EHCP, when it should have been completed within 8 weeks.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.

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

3. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against Council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by Miss X along with our Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X complains that after her son’s annual review, the Council failed to send the ECHP within the four week timescale as it should have done.
7. The Council acknowledged this and upheld her complaint in the stage one complaints process.
8. Once Miss X received the ECHP, she sent it back with amendments. When she received it from the Council the amendments were not evidenced, as is good practice.
9. The Council acknowledged this and upheld her complaint in the stage two complaints procedure.
10. Miss X wishes for further amendments to be made to the ECHP. The Council states it is awaiting her comments in order to do so.
11. Whilst I acknowledge Miss X is dissatisfied with the Council, it has responded appropriately, upheld her complaints, and apologised.
12. If Miss X remains dissatisfied with the content of the EHCP following her amendments, she has the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the procedural fault did not cause significant injustice and Miss X has the right to go to the SEND Tribunal if the Council does not resolve her outstanding concerns about the content of the EHCP.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman