Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about Special Educational Needs Assessments and Plans because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complained the Council delayed in issuing his son’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC plan), causing it to be issued outside of the statutory timeframes. He also complained the Council failed to update him about the delay and dealt poorly with the complaint.
2. Mr Y says this has led to him needing to take time and effort to complain and chase the Council, a delay in the EHC plan being finalised and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information Mr Y provided and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr Y told us by telephone that he requested an EHC needs assessment for his child on 2 December 2022. A Council must send the finalised EHC plan as soon as practicable, and in any event within 20 weeks of the Council receiving a request for an EHC needs assessment. Consequently, the deadline was 21 April 2023. The Council issued the final EHC plan on 9 May.
7. This means there was a delay, and a breach of the statutory timescales, of 18 days. Mr Y has said the delay meant he had to repeatedly chase the Council for updates, which were not initially provided, and his son did not receive the support and provision set out in the EHC plan as soon as he should.
8. Our role is to consider complaints where the person bringing the complaint has suffered significant personal injustice as a direct result of the actions or inactions of the organisation. This means we will normally only investigate a complaint where the complainant has suffered a serious loss, harm or distress as a direct result of faults or failures. We will not normally investigate a complaint where the alleged loss of injustice is not a serious or significant matter.
9. In this case, the Council has recognised the issue, apologised and have taken steps to try to prevent the problem from recurring. While the Council has failed to meet the statutory deadline, we cannot say there was a loss of provision, as until the EHC plan is issued, Mr Y’s child was not entitled to the provision.
10. Instead, we consider the impact to be the effort and time Mr Y made in complaining and the uncertainty for the family. Although there is an injustice, the delay causing this lasted for two and a half weeks. We would not consider this a significant enough loss or harm to justify our involvement and so we will not investigate this complaint.
11. As we are not investigating the substantive matter in this case, it is not a good use of public resources for us to investigate how the Council dealt with Mr Y’s complaint. We will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr Y’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman