Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to name a school in his son’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because Mr X has appealed to a tribunal. There is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decisions around Mr X’s son’s reduced timetable.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to name a school in his son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan and about how the Council completed the plan. He also complains about his son being placed on a part-time timetable and the way the Council handled his complaint.

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 cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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.
5. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says the Council delayed naming a placement for his son and raised concerns about how school consultations were carried out.
9. Mr X says he made a subject access request and, based on the information received, believes that in 2023 the Council pressured an unsuitable school to accept his son.
10. I cannot investigate these aspects of Mr X’s complaint, as he has exercised his right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the contents of his child’s EHC plan.
11. Mr X also complains that the Council issued an unlawful timetable for his son between February 2024 and June 2024.
12. The Council’s records show the reasons for the reduced timetable, that it was regularly reviewed, and that the Council concluded that it remained appropriate until Mr X’s son was able to return to full-time education. I see no evidence of fault in how the Council dealt with this matter, as it fully considered and justified its decisions. If there was no fault in the Council’s decision-making, we cannot question the outcome.
13. Mr X complains about the delays in handling his complaint and says the complaint was not managed correctly. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he has appealed to a tribunal and there is no evidence of fault in how the Council made its decisions around the reduced timetable for Mr X’s son.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman