Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council named an inappropriate school in the complainant’s son’s Education Health and Care plan, and failed to update its admissions system. The complaint concerns a matter about which the complainant could have appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would have been reasonable for her to do so.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council was at fault in naming an inappropriate school in her son’s Education Health and Care plan, and in failing to update its admissions system following its agreement to name the school of her choice.

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. 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)
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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X’s son has special educational needs and an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. He is due to transfer to secondary education in September 2025.
8. Miss X complains that the Council initially named her son’s catchment area school in his amended Final EHC plan. She says that was an error on the Council’s part, as the school is not appropriate for his needs and she had already obtained a place for him at an appropriate school. She complains that she was compelled to make repeated contact with the Council in order to address the error and ensure that the correct school was named. She says the matter caused her and her son significant distress and anxiety.
9. In its response to Mrs X’s representations, the Council did not accept that it named the catchment school in error. However, it agreed to amend the EHC plan to name her choice of school and to contact the school to advise it of the change. Miss X is not satisfied with the response. She says she wants the officers responsible for the matter to be held accountable. She further complains that, since she complained to the Council, she has become aware that its admissions system has not been updated with the change.
10. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. It is not for us to comment on whether the Council should have named the catchment school in the first instance. The education setting named in an EHC plan is a matter which can be the subject of an appeal to the Tribunal and, when appeal rights exist, the Ombudsman normally expects them to be used. Agreement was reached in this case, removing the need to pursue the appeal route. But the fact that it was available places the matter outside our jurisdiction.
11. The delay in updating the admissions system does not, in itself, warrant investigation by the Ombudsman. Miss X has asked the Council to update the record and there is no reason to doubt that it will do so. In any case, the key matter is that the EHC plan has been updated, and Miss X’s son has the appropriate school place for September 2025. There are insufficient grounds for us to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it concerns a matter about which she had the right to appeal to the Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman