Summary: We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the handling of her daughter’s Education Health and Care Plan annual review because Mrs X has appealed against the amended Plan. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the failure to provide her daughter with speech and language therapy because there is not enough evidence to show this caused significant injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains about her daughter Y’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review. She says Y’s school failed to follow the proper process, did not give her any paperwork before the meeting and failed to obtain her views or those of Y. She disagrees with the content of her daughter’s amended EHC Plan and says Y’s school failed to provide the speech and language therapy (SaLT) listed in the Plan for the past three years.

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 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)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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)
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 Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Because Mrs X disagrees with the content of Y’s amended EHC Plan she has lodged an appeal with the SEND Tribunal to challenge this. As a result we cannot investigate any complaint about the annual review process or the way the Council decided the content of the plan.
8. While Mrs X’s complaint about the lack of SaLT is a separate issue it is unlikely we could say it caused Mrs X or Y significant injustice. This is because the Council removed the SaLT from the amended EHC Plan as it was satisfied with Y’s progress and decided she did not require further intervention. We could not therefore say the lack of SaLT significantly disadvantaged Y as she has clearly made progress without it.
9. In addition, although the Council has overall responsibility for ensuring a child receives the provision listed in their EHC Plan we cannot expect it to monitor every aspect of every child’s provision. Mrs X confirms Y’s school told her it was delivering the SaLT provision and there is no suggestion the Council was made aware of any failure to do so, in order to take steps to address the issue.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because Mrs X’s concerns about the handling of Y’s EHC Plan annual review fall outside our jurisdiction and I have seen no evidence to show any failure to deliver Y’s SaLT caused significant injustice for which we would recommend a remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman