Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in securing an educational placement for her child. This is because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child, Y with a suitable post-16 educational placement. Miss X stated the situation has caused her and her family much stress and anxiety. She would like the Council to apologise to her child that he doesn’t have the post-16 placement that he wanted.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Y has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan.
9. The Council carried out a review of Y’s EHC plan in October 2024, it wrote to Miss X in November 2024 to confirm that it would make no changes to the plan.
10. The Council updated Y’s EHC plan in March 2025 which did not name a post-16 setting. The SEND code of practice states that EHC Plans must specify the post-16 provision and name an institution by 31 March in the calendar year of transfer.
11. Miss X complained to the Council in April 2025 that it had not secured a place at Y’s preferred post-16 education institution for September 2025.
12. The Council updated Y’s EHC plan again in August 2025 and named a different post-16 education institution for September 2025. It wrote to Miss X in August 2025 to notify her of the changes to the EHC plan and set out her appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal.
13. In its complaint response, the Council apologised to Miss X for the delay in consulting with Y’s preferred provision and the uncertainty this caused for Y and Miss X. It also stated that it would review Y’s case with the EHC team to inform improvements in phase transfer planning and consultation timelines for future learning.
14. The Council investigated and upheld Miss X’s complaint. It apologised for the delay in securing post-16 provision for Y and the uncertainty this caused for Y and Miss X. That remedies the injustice caused. We recognise Miss X feels the delay meant Y missed out on a placement at his preferred institution. However, he has not missed out on educational provision, the Council has named a placement in the August 2025 EHC Plan.
15. Although Miss X and Y are unhappy the Council did not secure their preferred provision for September 2025, we will not investigate this complaint. The Council has issued an EHC Plan and is providing education to Y as specified within that Plan. It is not for the Ombudsman to consider whether the post-16 institution is appropriate. This is a matter which falls outside our jurisdiction. If Miss X wishes to challenge Y’s current placement, it would be reasonable for her to have used her right to appeal to the Tribunal.
16. The Council also set out the internal service learning it would put in place to improve future transfers to post-16 institutions. That will reduce the recurrence of identified fault. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman