Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about Education Health and Care Plan delays because we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy. It is reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Tribunal a dispute over which is the suitable school for home to school transport purposes.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council delayed in amending an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and should pay home to school transport.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Miss X which includes the Council’s reply to her complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X’s child D, has an EHC Plan. The EHC Plan’s annual review was held in July 2024. The Council decided to amend the EHC Plan and issued it in May 2025. Miss X complained about the delay. The Council accepts it missed the Regulation time limits for issuing the amended EHC Plan. It offered as a remedy for the problems caused by this failure:
• £700 for the delay
• £600 for communication issues
• £3600 for no education for a year.
7. We will not investigate this delay. The Council has accepted fault and we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy as the proposal is within our remedies guidelines.
8. Miss X says the EHC Plan imposed a transport condition. She says this means if she does not pay for home to school transport D will have to attend a school which is not suitable for them.
9. D’s EHC Plan names School Z, an independent mainstream school. The EHC Plan says if Miss X does not pay for the transport then School Y is suitable. Miss X disagrees that School Y is suitable.
10. Government guidance which is in line with Court decisions on this issue sets out what the Council should do with home to school transport and EHC Plan cases.
11. If a Council decides providing travel to the parent’s preferred school would be incompatible with the efficient use of resources, the Council can:
• name a different school that would be suitable for the child’s needs (this may be the nearer school), or
• name the parent’s preferred school if the parent arranges the travel or provides some or all the cost of the travel, or
• name the parent’s preferred school on the condition they arrange the travel (or provide some or all the cost) and name a different school that would be suitable for the child’s needs and to which the authority would provide transport.
12. Further, the guidance notes that although transport should not normally be recorded in a child’s EHC Plan, when the Council names the parent’s preferred school on the condition that the parent arranges or pays for the travel, they may set out this condition in Section I of the plan.
13. The Council has done this in this case.
14. Where a parent disagrees the school named in the EHC Plan by the Council is suitable, or the Council’s decides it would be an inefficient use of resources to name their preferred school, the parents can appeal to the SEND Tribunal for a determination. The Tribunal has the power to replace the Council’s choice of school for the parent’s choice which would result in the council being required to fund transport. It is reasonable to expect Miss X to do so in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we are unlikely to achieve a significantly different remedy and it is reasonable to expect her to appeal the decision not to pay home to school transport.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman