Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failings to provide a suitable education for her child Y who has special educational needs. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable full-time education and specialist support for her child, Y, citing systemic failings across its departments.
2. She said this led to Y receiving minimal education over five years, missing critical developmental milestones, and developing severe social, emotional, and mental health needs. She wants the Council to secure a therapeutic placement with mental health support and further provide 24-hour care, life skills training, and help Y retake their exams.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:
• any fault has not caused a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement, or

• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. 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.
7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Ms X’s child has special education needs and an Education and Health Care (EHC) Plan.
11. Ms X complains about matters which she says have taken place since 2019. The law says we cannot look at matters the complainant has been aware of for more than 12 months unless we have good reason to. I have seen no good reason why Ms X could not have come to us sooner. Therefore, we will only consider those events which took place from October 2023.
12. An urgent annual review of Y’s EHC Plan was carried out in October 2023. The Council decided not to amend Y’s EHC Plan. Following the review the Council should have issued Y’s final EHC Plan in January 2024. However, the Council only issued Y’s final EHC Plan in late April 2024 which was outside of the statutory timescales.
13. The Council upheld Ms X’s complaint that it delayed issuing the final EHC Plan and apologised.
14. The Council issued the final EHC Plan during a time when Y did not attend school, and no alternative provisions were made. As such, the Council’s delay in issuing Y’s final EHC Plan likely did not cause any injustice. When Y resumed school in June 2024, their final EHC Plan was in place. We will not investigate this complaint further as any fault will have not caused a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.
15. In January 2024, Y was detained under the Mental Health Act and was admitted to hospital. With Y’s discharge from hospital, the school found it could no longer provide on-site education for Y. While efforts were made to arrange virtual learning or off-site tutoring, no suitable off-site solution was found.
16. The Council was aware Y was unable to attend school, but it delayed taking action to put in place alternative provision for them. This meant Y was without full-time education for just over one term. The Council apologised for its failings and offered to pay £2,125 to remedy this injustice. The payment is appropriate in the circumstances of the case and in line with our guidance on remedy for missed full-time education during one term. Therefore, will not investigate Ms X’s complaint, because our investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
17. Ms X said she wants the Council to secure additional provision. We have no power to consider such matters because they can be appealed to the SEND Tribunal. I can see no good reason why Ms X cannot take this route to achieve the outcome she wants.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate this complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman