Summary: We decided not to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a three-month delay in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process of her child, Y. This is because the Council upheld the complaint, apologised to Mrs X, and offered her a £300 symbolic payment in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. Further investigation by us would therefore not be proportionate.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
• failed to complete the EHC process regarding her child, Y, in line with statutory timescales; and
• failed to communicate with her effectively.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused her frustration, uncertainty and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), 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. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

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. If we investigated this complaint, we would likely find fault because:
• Mrs X asked the Council to complete an EHC needs assessment of Y. The Council refused to assess Y and Mrs X appealed to the SEND Tribunal.
• Before the SEND Tribunal process started, the Council wrote to the Tribunal on 26 July 2024 and told it that it did not oppose the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal process ended, and the Council began the assessment in line with SEND Regulation 45. This meant if the Council decided to make an EHC Plan for Y, it should have done so within 14 weeks, by 01 November 2024.
• The Council did not make a final EHC Plan for Y until 24 January 2025. This was 12 weeks beyond the statutory timescales.
• In its complaint response, the Council upheld the complaint and apologised to Mrs X for the frustration, uncertainty and distress caused by the delays. It also apologised to Mrs X for its poor communication and explained service improvements it would make to improve its service.
• The Council offered Mrs X a £300 symbolic payment to acknowledge the frustration, uncertainty and distress caused by the delays. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
9. During a recent investigation by us about similar matters, the Council agreed to create an action plan to address the systemic issues in its EHC processes.
10. Because the Council’s remedy is in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, and because further investigation would not achieve any additional outcome, we upheld the complaint, but did not investigate further.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We upheld this complaint because the Council upheld the complaint and offered a remedy in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. It is also acting to improve its service for others.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman