Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions related to Ms X’s child’s Education, Health and Care plan. This is because we could not add anything to the Council’s investigation or achieve a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to send her and her child, Y’s, school a copy of a final Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. She said the Council also failed to tell Y’s previous school they had left, which led to an unnecessary welfare visit in September 2022. She says the Council’s actions increased her child’s anxiety which led to a difficult school transition. She wants the Council to apologise for the delay sending the plan, failing to put appropriate transition arrangements in place and for poor communication.

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
4. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In September 2022, the SEND Tribunal ordered the Council to name a school in Y’s EHC plan. The Council did this but did not send Ms X or the school a copy of the finalised plan.
8. In the Council’s complaint response, it apologised for the delay issuing the plan. It said as soon as it was made aware Ms X and the school had not received copies of the final plan, it re-sent them. It said the school had a copy of the draft plan issued during consultation and so was aware of the provisions prior to Y starting at the school and had agreed it could implement them.
9. It said if it had been made aware that Y was having difficulty settling at the new school, it would have provided more support, but neither Ms X nor the school made the Council aware of this at the time.

My findings

10. The Council has accepted there was delay issuing the final plan and has apologised to Ms X for this. The Council has confirmed Y’s school had a copy of the draft EHC plan and knew about the provisions needed to support Y’s transition. Therefore, I am satisfied the Council’s apology remedies any injustice caused. Further investigation would not achieve anything more.
11. The visit completed by Y’s previous school was to ensure Y’s welfare. Although Ms X believes the Council is responsible for Y’s old school completing a welfare visit, we will not investigate this complaint. Firstly, we cannot investigate the actions of schools. Secondly, further investigation is unlikely to conclude that this visit taking place caused Y a significant injustice or that it caused Y’s difficulties transitioning to the new school.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because we could not add anything to the previous investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman