Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays in the Council issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. It is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different remedy than already offered.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall call Ms X, says the Council has failed to provide an adequate remedy for loss of education provision and support.

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:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Ms X which included the Council’s reply to her.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X asked the Council to assess her child, D, for an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) in July 2020. The Council did so and issued an EHC Plan in July 2021. Ms X complained to the Council about the delay in providing the EHC Plan. The Council replied in September 2021. It accepted:
• Six months of the delay was unacceptable and outside the legal timescales.
• D had not received the education and support provision they should have in that time.
7. The Council apologised and offered £3600. It said this amount was in keeping with our Guidance on Remedies.
8. Ms X says she asked for the Council to review its decision but accepts she did so outside of the Council’s time for doing so. She says the effect on D has been great as she approaches public exams, and she thinks the payment should be higher.
9. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs and disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’) sets out the process for carrying out EHC assessments and producing EHC Plans. The guidance is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014. It says:
• where a council receives a request for an EHC needs assessment it must decide within six weeks whether to agree to the assessment;
• the process of assessing needs and developing EHC Plans “must be carried out in a timely manner”. Steps must be completed as soon as practicable;
• the whole process from the point of an assessment request until the final EHC Plan issue must take no more than 20 weeks (unless certain specific circumstances apply); and
• councils must give the child’s parent or the young person 15 days to comment on a draft EHC plan.
10. Our Guidance on Remedies recommends a payment of £200 to £600 per month for missed provision. The Council’s offer is at the top end of this range. It is unlikely our investigation could achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely we could achieve a significantly different remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman