Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in reviewing an Education, Health and Care Plan. We cannot investigate complaints about schools and there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which caused a significant personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained the Council delayed in carrying out the annual review of her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Miss X says the delay caused frustration, distress, and time and trouble. Miss X says her son (Y) missed most of his targets, changes to the EHC Plan were delayed, and Y’s father had to take two days off work. This was because the Council scheduled Y’s annual review on a different day to his brother’s. Miss X says the scheduling of the annual review meant Y missed important Speech and Language (SALT) sessions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

4. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools unless it relates to special educational needs, when the schools are acting on behalf of the council to secure educational provision as set out in Section F of the young person’s Education, Health and Care Plan.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Where a child has an EHC Plan, the Council is responsible for the annual review process. But it can also delegate the process to schools as it did here. Y’s annual review was due before the end of April 2024. It eventually took place on 05 July.
9. In its response to Miss X’s complaint the Council said Y’s school tried to schedule the meeting earlier but for various reason this was not possible.
10. Because of the exception at paragraph 5, we cannot look at the actions of the school in arranging the meeting and any delay it caused. We cannot therefore investigate the delay from the end of April to 05 July 2024 and any injustice claimed.
11. Miss X says Y missed most of his targets. But even if we investigated, we could not say that was down to delay in the annual review. I understand that following the annual review, there were no significant delays, and the Council did not change the EHC Plan. We could not therefore say there was any fault by the Council which delayed the introduction of new provision and caused a significant injustice. The scheduling of Y’s annual review and that of his sibling on different days is not something we could criticise the Council for.
12. In its response to Miss X’s complaint the Council said the SALT sessions would be rearranged. We could not achieve anything more by investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault causing a significant personal injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman