Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational and special educational provision for the complainant’s son. Investigation is unlikely to add anything significant to the outcome which has already been achieved, or lead to a different outcome, and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council has failed to make appropriate educational and special educational provision for her son.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s son has special educational needs and an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. Mrs X moved to the Council’s area in January 2025. She complains that, despite arrangements for the transfer of the EHC plan being in place before the move, the Council failed to make appropriate provision available for her son.
6. Mrs X says two local schools declined to offer her son a place without proper consideration. She says the Council failed to identify a school place for him and failed to make appropriate interim provision. As a result, he has missed out on education and the therapies set out in his EHC plan. She says the Council has now made interim provision, but her son is only attending for one hour each day.
7. The correspondence Mrs X has provided shows that the Council has upheld her complaint. The Ombudsman will not normally investigate complaints which have already been upheld. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. The key question is whether our intervention is likely to add anything significant to the outcome, or lead to a different outcome. That is not the case here.
8. The Council accepts that Mrs X’s son missed out on educational and special educational provision between January and March 2025. It has apologised for the fault on its part and has offered a symbolic payment of £1100 in recognition of it. Mrs X does not regard the payment as an appropriate remedy for the injustice she and her son have been caused, in that it does not assist in providing an appropriate school place. It is, however, broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would be likely to recommend in recognition of a failure to provide education and therapies for one school term. Our intervention would be unlikely to achieve significantly more and is not therefore warranted.
9. The Council has made 15 hours per week of alternative provision for Mrs X son from the end of March 2025, and has offered further payments totalling £400 in respect of the delay in securing the therapies and the time and trouble Miss X has been put to in pursuing her complaint. This is a proportionate outcome in the circumstances of the case. Miss X says her son is not attending the full 15 hours. That is a matter for her to pursue with the Council directly.
10. The Council issued an amended final EHC plan in April 2025, identifying a school place and giving Mrs X the right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). If Mrs X disagrees with the content of the EHC plan, it would be reasonable for her to use her right to appeal. There is no role for the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because investigation is unlikely to add anything significant or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman