Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care Plan process, any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained. In addition, any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about how the Council handled her child, B’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan review. She said the Council:
• delayed in issuing her child’s final amended EHC Plan after their annual review; and
• failed to communicate with her.
2. Mrs X said the Council had admitted to above faults but considered an apology as sufficient remedy. She said the delays caused avoidable stress and frustration.
3. She wants the Council to adhere to its own policies to prevent similar stress for other families of children with special education needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

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

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. The Council reviewed B’s EHC Plan at the annual review meeting on the 10 May 2024. It decided to amend the Plan which meant that the Council needed to issue B’s final amended EHC Plan by 2 August 2024.
8. The Council issued B’s final amended EHC Plan on the 17 October 2024, which was a delay of 11 weeks and 6 weeks after the start of the September term.
9. Mrs X complained that as a result, B missed some of the provision in their Plan.
10. While I recognise Mrs X’s frustrations with the delay, we will not investigate her complaint. The Council’s apology and explanation is a sufficient remedy. The injustice caused by the delay is not significant enough to warrant a financial remedy. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint further.
11. In its complaint response, the Council acknowledged its communications had not been of the expected standard. It clarified there is a focus within its Special Education Needs and Disabilities (SEND) team to improve this moving forward. The Council now monitors call responses to improve its service to SEN families.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because the Council admitted fault in how it handled B’s EHC Plan review. It apologised and any injustice is not significant enough to warrant our investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman