Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the provision of an Education Health and Care Plan. It is unlikely we could achieve more than the Council’s complaint investigation achieved.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council failed to ensure her child, D, received the support set out in an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan).

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:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Miss X which included the Council’s reply.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X’s child, D has an EHC Plan. A Tribunal decided what the EHC Plan should say in January 2025. Miss X complained to the Council the school was not providing what was in the EHC Plan and said it would not. The Council replied to her complaint in February 2025. It said its Educational Psychologist would meet with the school to sort out the support. It said the school had been providing some of the support. It said D’s marks shown they a had significantly progressed. It also offered £200 for the reduced support to that point.
6. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
7. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 
• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised the provision is not in place at any time. 
8. Here, the Council has quickly looked into Miss X’s allegations and arranged action. It is unlikely our investigation could achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it is unlikely our investigation could achieve more than the Council’s.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman