Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint the Council delayed a decision for an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council in the length of time it took. We will not investigate his complaint about how the Council communicated this decision as there is no significant injustice to Mr X. Finally, we will not investigate the Council’s decision not to issue an Education Health and Care Plan. This is because Mr X has a right of appeal about this and it would be reasonable to expect him to use it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council breached the statutory time limits when making its decision not to issue an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. He complained the Council misdated the letter sent to him, leading to misrepresentation of the timescales. Mr X argued these errors made the EHCP assessment unlawful. Mr X says the decision not to issue an EHC Plan has impacted his child’s education.

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.

(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.
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained about the EHC Plan assessment process. After a referral in September 2024, the Council decided not to carry out an assessment, but after mediation arranged to complete one. The Council completed the assessment and made its decision not to issue an EHC plan in February 2025.
8. Mr X argued the time taken for assessment was over 16 week time limit. The Council explained the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 allow for the change to the timescale after a mediation agreement, bringing the completed assessment within time. Given the legislation allows for this, there is not sufficient evidence of fault in the time it took for the Council made this decision to warrant investigation.
9. When the Council wrote to Mr X it explained the start date for his right to appeal or request mediation was the date of the panel decision. The Council sent the letter 3 days after the panel. Mr X complained this delay made the timescales incorrect and the letter did not include the timescale to request mediation.
10. The Council accepted the start date for appeal or mediation should begin on the day of issue not day of its decision. The Council apologised to Mr X and said it will make service improvements to its letter templates. There is no significant injustice to Mr X to warrant investigation as the Council apologised and he was still able to access mediation.
11. Mr X believes the Council should now issue a new decision notice or draft EHC Plan. We will not investigate this part of the complaint because there is a right of appeal to the Tribunal about this and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to use his appeal right, particularly because parliament set it up for this purpose.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a delayed decision because there is not enough evidence of fault and not enough injustice about how it told Mr X about its decision. Finally, we will not investigate the decision not to issue an EHC Plan because Mr X has a right of appeal about this and it would be reasonable to expect him to use it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman