Summary: We will not investigate Mr X complaint about an Education Health and Care Plan transfer. There is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice because of the Council’s actions.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council handled the transfer of his child, Y’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan from a different Local Authority.

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 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 not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X has a child, Y who has an EHC Plan. The Council was notified Y would be transferring to their area by the previous council.
6. Mr X complains the Council delayed accepting Y’s EHC Plan transfer and did not pay Y’s direct payment invoices in this time.
7. The Council received notification of the EHC Plan transfer and requested proof of residence documents from Mr X. There was a 3-month delay in Mr X providing proof of residency to the Council.
8. The Council paid invoices under the EHC Plan from the point proof of residency was received. However, the Council did not pay invoices from prior to the proof of residency being received. The unpaid invoices are addressed to Mr X’s previous address which is outside the Council’s area.
9. Councils are required to transfer an EHC Plan within 15 working days of a move to the area. It is reasonable for a council to require proof of residency to establish a move to an area before processing a transfer. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to process the transfer until proof of residency had been received.
10. The Council accepted the transfer 25 working days after proof of residency was received. While there was a slight delay of 10 working days, the Council paid the invoices from this time. This delay therefore did not cause a significant enough injustice to warrant investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating. Mr X has also not suffered significant injustice because of any delays after he provided proof of residency.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman