Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her son’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review. This is because the injustice she claims stems from the content of the Plan and if Ms X disagrees with this it would have been reasonable for her to appeal.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains about the Council’s annual review of her son’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She says the Council failed to include crucial details in Section F of the Plan, tried to coerce her into agreeing to cover the cost of transporting her son to school and fabricated an agreement to this effect.

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 effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’.
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 Ms X and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. While Ms X’s complaints largely focus on the Council’s actions in carrying out her son’s annual review the injustice she claims lies in the content of the revised EHC Plan. Specifically, Ms X considers Section F of the Plan is incomplete and that Section I, which sets out her son’s educational placement, is incorrect. This is for two reasons- firstly, Ms X considers that her preferred school is the only suitable school for her son whereas the revised EHC Plan states that it and another school, which is closer to her home, can meet her son’s needs. Secondly, Section I states the Council “has agreed to name [Ms X’s preferred school] on the express basis that [Ms X] accepts and continues to accept liability for arranging and funding home to school transport… If for any reason they are no longer willing to able to do so then [Ms X’s son] would be expected to transfer to [the other school named], which is the nearest suitable school.” Ms X considers this incorrect as she has never agreed to take on the cost of school transport for her son to attend her preferred school.
8. Ms X’s arguments about the accuracy of Sections F and I of her son’s revised EHC Plan are matters for the appeals process and I consider it reasonable for Ms X to use her right of appeal to challenge the Plan.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for Ms X to appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman