Bristol City Council (22 016 420)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health, and Care needs assessment process. She says the Council delayed in issuing her child’s final EHC plan. This is because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome as the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy.
The complaint
- Miss X complains about delays in the Education, Health, and Care (EHC) needs assessment process. She says the Council delayed in issuing her child’s final EHC plan. This delay meant she was unable to apply for home to school transport and she had to transport her child to their school.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by the complainant.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- Miss X asked the Council to complete an EHC needs assessment for her child, A.
- During its complaint response, the Council acknowledged it had delayed in issuing A’s final EHC plan. The Council noted it should have issued the final plan by June 2021, but that it did not do so until January 2022; a delay of seven months.
- A started at School 1 in September 2021. At this point, Miss X had moved away from School 1’s catchment area and was transporting A to school. The Council agreed to reimburse Miss X for her travel expenses between September 2021 and January 2022. This was because during this period, the Council had not yet decided School 2 was the nearest suitable school for A. We consider this to be appropriate to remedy the injustice caused to Miss X.
- The final EHC plan, issued in January 2022, noted the Council considered School 2 to be the nearest suitable school that could meet A’s needs. The plan noted that as Miss X preferred for A to attend School 1, she would be responsible for meeting the travel costs.
- Following the annual review held in July 2022, A’s EHC plan was amended to specify they needed small group work. School 2 responded to the Council’s consultation in October 2022 and confirmed it could no longer meet A’s needs.
- The Council accepted it delayed in consulting other schools. The Council therefore agreed to reimburse Miss X for the travel costs incurred between October and December 2022. We are satisfied this is an appropriate remedy.
- The Council explained to Miss X that following the consultation process, if School 1 was the only school that could meet A’s needs, it would name the school in A’s EHC plan. The Council would also meet the travel costs from that point. However, if there were schools nearer to Miss X’s home address that could meet A’s needs, then Miss X would be responsible for travel arrangements and costs if she wished for A to remain at School 1.
- An investigation is not justified as it would not lead to any different or worthwhile outcomes. This is because the Council has already acknowledged it delayed in issuing the final EHC plan and delayed in consulting other schools following the annual review. The Council has agreed to provide an appropriate remedy to put right the injustice caused to Miss X.
- I do not consider any further remedy is appropriate in the circumstances. This is because the evidence does not suggest the delays disadvantaged A or impacted on his educational progress. Miss X did not raise any concerns about School 1 and specifically noted A was in a great place.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to a different outcome as the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman