Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health, and Care Plan. This is because the Council have already acknowledged fault for earlier delays, apologised, offered a suitable financial remedy, and further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. The remaining matters either come with an appeal right or have already been appealed and are therefore outside our jurisdiction.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council delayed issuing a decision letter after his child’s annual review in June 2024.
2. He also complained about the content of the amended EHC plan and how the Council dealt with changes to it. Mr X said this has caused his family to suffer and negatively impacted his child’s education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)
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.
6. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 
10. Mr X’s child (Y) has an EHC Plan. Following an annual review of that plan in June 2024, the Council delayed providing Mr X with its decision, which it should have issued within four weeks of the review. It did not provide this decision until October 2024, therefore a delay by around three months.
11. The Council upheld this complaint and apologised. Additionally, it offered Mr X a financial remedy of £400 to remedy his injustice. We will not investigate this part of the complaint, because it is a suitable remedy for Mr X’s injustice caused by delays.
12. Mr X appealed to the Tribunal about the Council’s decision relating to Y’s education placement. He also told us he was unhappy with the content of the EHC plan. Because of the law cited in paragraph six, we cannot look at any complaint about the placement.
13. Furthermore, because of the law at paragraph four and the restriction on our role as mentioned at paragraph nine, we will not look at a complaint about the content of Y’s EHC plan, because Mr X had an appeal right for this also and it would have been reasonable for him to use that appeal right.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because the Council have already provided suitable remedy for earlier delays, and the other issues raised are outside our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman