Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs Z’s complaint that the Council named an unsuitable school in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs Z has already appealed to the SEND Tribunal about this. We will not consider other issues raised by Mrs Z as we have already considered them in a previous complaint to the Ombudsman.

The complaint

1. Mrs Z complains the Council:
1. named an unsuitable school (School A) in her child, B’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) instead of the parental preference (School B);
2. refused to reimburse the costs she incurred on an advocate to support her Tribunal claim;
3. failed to respond to emails about the Council’s suitability assessment of School A; and,
4. failed to provide B with the correct number of physiotherapy sessions specified in the EHC Plan.

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 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.
5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

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. In September 2024, Mrs Z’s child, B, was expected to transition to reception year. Mrs Z complains that, ahead of this move, the Council named an unsuitable school (School A) in B’s EHC Plan.
9. I cannot investigate Mrs Z’s complaint about the suitability of School A because Mrs Z appealed to the Tribunal about this.
10. As I cannot look at Mrs Z’s complaint about the suitability of School A, I would have no basis to recommend the Council reimburse Mrs Z for the advocacy costs she paid. This is because I cannot look at the consequences of any alleged fault in the Council’s decision-making around placement suitability as this overlaps with the Tribunal appeal.
11. It would not be proportionate to investigate the complaint about delays in communication with Mrs Z when we cannot investigate the substantive matter.
12. I cannot investigate Mrs Z’s complaint about physiotherapy sessions and the Council’s handling of her requests for a personal budget to arrange this herself. This is because we previously considered these complaints in a separate case.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We cannot investigate Mrs Z’s complaint that the Council named an unsuitable school in her child’s EHC Plan. Mrs Z has already appealed to the SEND Tribunal about this. We will not consider other issues raised by Mrs Z as we have already considered them in a previous complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman