Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with an annual review of a young person’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because most of the issues raised are not separable from an appeal made against the contents of the plan. Other issues have not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council managed the review of her daughter’s Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. Mrs X raises several concerns about how the Council carried out the annual review, delays issuing the final EHC plan, the contents of the final EHC plan, how it communicated with her and how it dealt with matters concerning her appeal to a tribunal.

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 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 continue 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))
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), 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.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X’s daughter started post-16 education in September 2023. Prior to this, an annual review took place in January 2023 and draft EHC plan issued in March. The Council issued a final EHC plan in April naming a type of placement. Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the contents of the EHC plan including the failure to name a specific placement. The appeal concluded in December 2023 and the Council subsequently issued a final amended EHC plan.
8. I cannot investigate the contents of the EHC plan including the Council’s decision to only name a type of placement. This is because Mrs X appealed these matters to the SEND Tribunal placing them outside of our jurisdiction.
9. Many of the issues raised by Mrs X in her complaint concern how the Council dealt with the review process. These concerns include that her and her daughter’s voices not being heard, how the Council consulted with education placements, information being removed or omitted without justification. However, I cannot investigate these matters. This is because the outcome of these issues is that Mrs X considered that the EHC plan issued was inadequate. This was the basis for Mrs X’s appeal and therefore these matters are not separable from the appeal itself.
10. The Council did delay issuing a final EHC plan, meaning Mrs X’s appeal right was frustrated. However, the delay was a matter of weeks and on balance I do not consider this caused Mrs X an injustice significant enough to warrant investigation. Mrs X also complains about poor communication by the Council but, again, I do not consider that this amounts to a significance injustice to warrant our further involvement.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because most matters are inseparable form her appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Others have not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman