Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the council did not make the provision specified in his Education Health and Care Plan while waiting for a Tribunal hearing to consider its decision to cease the Plan. Investigation would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council failed to make the provision specified in his Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan while waiting for a Tribunal to consider its decision to cease it.

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 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code. The complaint concerns these matters from September 2024 to May 2025. Related matters up to August 2024 were considered in complaint 23 011 251.

Back to top

My assessment

6. When the Council decided to cease Mr X’s EHC Plan, it would have had the duty to maintain the provision until the date of the SEND Tribunal hearing. However, EHC Plans are designed to aid children and young people who have difficulty in achieving educational outcomes. Where these Plans continue beyond the usual end of formal education at age 19, they are intended to aid young people who may take longer to achieve educational outcomes.
7. I note the Council, in taking its decision to cease the EHC Plan, stated Mr X had achieved the highest possible grades in a Level 3 course he had completed by age 19 that was the equivalent of three A Levels. It could thus take the view there was no further educational provision it could reasonably provide below Level 4, which is higher education, and not part of its remit. It could also take the view that Mr X wanting to complete a Level 2 course in a similar subject was not an educational need as he already had the educational qualifications he needed to progress to university, employment, or an apprenticeship. Investigation of this matter by us would be unlikely to find fault by the Council.
8. I also note the Council confirmed it had been unable to source occupational therapy (OT) or cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) specified in Mr X’s EHC Plan. However, it stated it had made regular payments to cover this to August 2025, which was after the due date of the SEND Tribunal. It also stated that Mr X had made it difficult to deliver provision directly by raising objections to dates, times and places. The Council also offered Mr X a payment for its delay in dealing with his complaint about these matters. If were to investigate and find fault in these matters, it is unlikely we would recommend more than the Council has already offered.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because doing so would be unlikely to lead to any worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman