Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision to name a mainstream school in his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan because he had a right to appeal the matter to the SEND Tribunal, and it was reasonable to expect him to use that right.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to name a suitable school placement in section I of his child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
2. Mr X said the matter caused him frustration and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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.
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. The Council finalised Y’s EHC Plan in January 2025 naming a mainstream school in section I. The Council told Mr X about his right to appeal the school named in section I to the SEND Tribunal.
9. Mr X complained to the Council and, eventually, the Ombudsman about the decision. Mr X wants the Council to name a special school in section I. Mr X explained he did not appeal to the SEND Tribunal because of difficulties relating to his mental health.
10. The law says the Ombudsman cannot investigate a matter that could be considered by a tribunal unless we decide it was unreasonable for the person bringing the complaint to have appealed to the SEND Tribunal.
11. Although Mr X explained about his mental health difficulties, it was still reasonable for him to have appealed the content of the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal. This is because Mr X was able to complain to both the Council and the Ombudsman. Submitting an appeal to the SEND Tribunal is no more complicated or burdensome than those processes.
12. Consequently, it was reasonable for Mr X to have used his right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and we will not exercise discretion to investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had a right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and it was reasonable to expect him to use that right.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman