Milton Keynes Council (24 021 241)
Category : Education > Special educational needs
Decision : Closed after initial enquiries
Decision date : 02 Sep 2025
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that her son, B, is not receiving the special educational provision in his education, health and care (EHC) plan because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
The complaint
- Mrs X is concerned that her son, B, is falling behind his peers at school.
- She is concerned the school has not delivered the special educational provision in his education, health and care (EHC) plan.
- She asked the school for evidence and is unhappy with the school’s response. She will not accept assurances from the school and the Council without some form of evidence.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- 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 do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
- there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
- we could not add to any previous investigation by the organization.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
- I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
- I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
- B has an education, health and care (EHC) plan maintained by the Council. He attends a mainstream primary school. The school told Mrs X at a parents evening that B’s “output and quality” had declined. Mrs X is concerned this is because he is not receiving the special educational provision in his EHC plan.
- She complained to the school and the Council. The Council’s EHC Specialist Teaching team carried out an observation of B in class and a consultation with the school. The Council was satisfied the school was delivering the provision in B’s plan. The school noted B’s progress at the annual review of his plan.
- Mrs X does not accept the school or the Council’s assurances without evidence the provision was delivered.
- My role is to check how the Council responded when Mrs X reported her concerns. We cannot investigate complaints about schools. And we have neither the authority nor the expertise to judge whether a pupil is making adequate progress.
- I have read B’s latest EHC Plan to familiarise myself with the special educational provision it contains. I note the Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns by sending the EHC Specialist Teaching team to the school to observe B in class and discuss the provision with the school. This is what I would have expected given Mrs X’s concerns. The Council was satisfied with the provision.
- There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating Mrs X’s complaint.
- Mrs X wants evidence the school has delivered the provision in B’s EHC plan. In this case, the evidence is what the Council saw when it visited the school.
Final decision
- We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint that her son, B, is not receiving the special educational provision in his education, health and care (EHC) plan because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman