Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s compliance with an order of the SEND Tribunal. This is because the alleged injustice is speculative and not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to amend her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in line with an order of the SEND Tribunal.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused her uncertainty about the future of Y’s school placement.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to remove the school leaving date from the EHC Plan.

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))

5. 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

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s compliance with an order of the SEND Tribunal.
9. The SEND Tribunal ordered the Council to name a specific school in section I of Y’s EHC Plan. The Council named the school in a final amended EHC Plan, but also specified an end date. The end date is the end of a key stage of Y’s education and is a few years in the future.
10. Mrs X said the Council should not have specified an end date in the EHC Plan and said this causes her uncertainty about Y’s future placement. However, the alleged injustice is speculative and not sufficient to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
11. This is because EHC Plans are reviewed annually. Between now and the time Y moves between key stages of their education, the Council will conduct multiple annual reviews, including a phase transfer review before the end of the current key stage. At the reviews, the Council will decide what school to name in section I of the EHC Plan. The Council may decide to change the placement or maintain the placement. In either case, if Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s decision, she can appeal the decision to the SEND Tribunal at the time.
12. Whether the current EHC Plan specifies an “end date” or not is therefore immaterial. Any injustice is speculative and not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and so we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the alleged injustice is speculative and not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman