Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint because the Council failed to seek his views on his daughter’s original Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the contents of the current plan because the case has been appealed to a tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council did not consult him during the drafting of his daughter’s original Education Health and Care (EHC) plan and raises ongoing concerns about the content and administration of the current plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
4. 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)
5. 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

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 initially complained to the Council in July 2024, stating that it had not sought his views on the draft EHC plan. The Council responded by explaining that it had misinterpreted a Child Arrangements Order, which led it to believe that his daughter’s mother was solely responsible for sharing information. The Council apologised and confirmed it would ensure Mr X is included in future communications. It also advised that an internal review would be undertaken to ensure that, in cases where parents live apart and a court order is in place, information is shared appropriately
9. If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault, because Mr X’s appeal rights were frustrated by not consulting with him on his daughter’s plan.
10. We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by its actions, by offering a remedy payment of £300 for frustrating his appeal rights. To its credit the Council agreed to our proposal.
11. I cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the content of the current EHC plan because the case is now being considered by the SEND Tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We have upheld this complaint because the because the Council failed to seek his views on his daughter’s original Education Health and Care Plan. To its credit, the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused to Mr X. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the contents of the current plan because the case has been submitted to the SEND Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman