Summary: We have not investigated Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s offer of education to his son. This is because, since May 2025, it is a direct consequence of the Council’s decision to not name a school in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan and it is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed to the Tribunal. Before May, the Council has already offered a suitable remedy, so further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the lack of education his son, Y, has received since moving into the Council’s area and the impact that has had on his 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone had a right of appeal to a tribunal about the same matter, or could have taken it to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would have been unreasonable to expect the person to use these rights. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(6)(a) and 26(6)(c), 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 evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

7. The Council issued Y’s education, health and care (EHC) plan in May 2025. Since then, his lack of education has been as a direct consequence of the Council’s decision not to name a school in the plan.
8. When the Council made this decision, Mr X was given a right of appeal to the Tribunal. At that point, this matter became something for the Tribunal to decide.
9. It would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to use this appeal right, and, for this reason, I cannot look at his complaint about Y’s lack of education from May 2025 onwards. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters which could have been resolved by the Tribunal. Our role cannot overlap that of the Tribunal.
10. Although Mr X also complains about education Y received (or did not receive) before May 2025 as well, the Council has already looked into this complaint and has offered a financial payment to recognise Y’s missed education. This offer is in line with our published guidance on remedies. Because of this, I will not investigate this part of the complaint, as further investigation is unlikely to lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Decision

11. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman