Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in producing an Education Health and Care Plan as it is unlikely we would achieve a significantly different remedy. As Mrs X has used her right to appeal to the Tribunal we cannot investigate her complaint about the Council’s decision to name a school on an Education Health and Care Plan.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education Health Care (EHC) Plan for her child Y.
2. She says the delays prevented Y from attending a suitable school causing uncertainty and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions about special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. 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)

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. Mrs X complained to the Council that it had delayed issuing her child Y with an EHC Plan. She said the delay caused Y to miss out on a school place of parental preference. Further she said the named school was not able to meet Y’s needs.
11. In its response, the Council said it issued a final EHC Plan in October 2024. The Council said this was a delay of twelve weeks over the regulations. It apologised to Mrs X for the delay, accepted fault, and awarded £200 for the inconvenience caused. This offer meets our guidance on remedies. It is unlikely our investigation would lead to a significantly different remedy for any delay.
12. Whether the school is suitable for Mrs X’s child is not a matter for the Ombudsman. Mrs X has used her right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the Council can do this. 

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate this complaint because we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy to that offered by the Council for delays in producing an EHC Plan. Mrs X’s appeal to the Tribunal places part of the complaint outside of matters the Ombudsman can investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman