Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his child’s special educational needs. He complains the Council failed to consider and acknowledge its unlawful decision to cease to maintain an EHC plan, failed to provide educational provision following his appeal, and failed to communicate with him appropriately. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his child’s special educational needs. He complains the Council:
• Failed to consider and acknowledge the unlawful decision to cease to maintain his child’s Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plan.
• Failed to provide educational provision following his appeal which meant his child had no access to any education.
• Failed to communicate with him appropriately.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council decided to cease to maintain Mr X’s child’s, Ms Z, EHC plan in 2020. Mr X appealed this decision, and the appeal was upheld. The Council received the Tribunal’s decision in June 2020. This stated the Council must maintain the plan and make amendments.
7. We cannot investigate any complaints about the Council’s decision to cease to maintain the plan as it was a matter for the Tribunal to consider. As Mr X has used his right of appeal, this complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
8. During its complaint investigation, the Council accepted there had been considerable delay in putting in place the education package. This was further complicated by the restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council accepted this meant Ms Z was left without her full provision.
9. In its complaint response, the Council offered £1500 per term to remedy the missed provision. As Ms Z missed a total of three terms, the total was £4500.
10. An investigation is not justified on this point as Mr X’s complaint is late. The delays with implementing the education provision happened in 2020/21. I note Mr X has said that he did not complain earlier because he was it was not safe to do so until Ms Z’s education was over. This suggests Mr X was therefore aware of his concerns earlier. However, I do not consider the reasons given to be sufficient to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint.
11. In any case, even if we were to exercise discretion to consider the late complaint, we would not investigate. This is because the Council’s remedy offer is appropriate and in line with our remedies guidance. An investigation would not lead to any further recommendations.
12. The Council has since made a new decision to cease to maintain Ms Z’s EHC plan. This was because Ms Z had reached the age of 25. EHC plans are for children and young people agreed up to 25 and councils can end EHC plans at the end of the academic year in which the young person turns 25. An investigation is therefore not justified as we are not likely to find fault with the Council’s decision to cease to maintain the plan.
13. While the Council did send out a letter to Mr X and Ms Z to tell them about the plan ending, it accepted it should have done this earlier than it did. It also accepted there were missed opportunities to create a smooth transition plan into adulthood, and that its communications with Mr X about the matter was poor.
14. The Council has offered £500 to recognise the distress caused by the above accepted faults. It also offered £500 to recognise the time and trouble taken to pursue the complaint.
15. An investigation is not justified as an investigation is not likely to reach any further or different findings. The Council has acknowledged it was at fault and made a suitable remedy offer to recognise the injustice caused by the faults accepted. An investigation would lead to any further recommendations as the remedy offer is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman