Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay following the annual review of an Education, Health and Care Plan. An investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome and so our further involvement is not warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about delay following the annual review of his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mr X says the Council failed to issue an amendment notice in the required four weeks – despite the Council initially claiming it had sent one. Mr X says the Council failed to send a draft amended EHC Plan as required, or the final EHC Plan within 12 weeks. Mr X is unhappy with the Council’s handling of his complaint and says the delay had a significant impact on his whole family.

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, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(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 the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. In response to Mr X’s complaint the Council has accepted it did not send the amendment notice to Mr X on a particular date – despite originally saying it had. The Council has accepted delay in the process and offered a payment of £500.
6. While I understand Mr X’s frustrations, we will not start an investigation into his complaint.
7. The Council’s offer of £500 for what amounted to around two and a half months of delay is an appropriate remedy. The Council has apologised for the delay as we would expect. If we were to investigate, it is unlikely we would recommend a higher payment or additional remedies.
8. I note Mr X is concerned the Council originally said it had sent an amendment notice and then changed its position. But it is not a good use of our resources to investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue if we are not investigating the issue which led to the original complaint – which in this case is the delay. Like above, even if we did investigate, it is unlikely it would lead to a different outcome as the final response offered by the Council is considered proportionate.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because an investigation would be unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman