Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a delay in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan as it is not sufficient to justify an investigation. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed to the Tribunal if the Council’s assessment process was so flawed it meant the Education Health and Care Plan does not meet her child’s needs.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council delayed in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and she disagrees with the quality of that EHC Plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
3. 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)
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 SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
5. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; 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

6. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In October 2024 Mrs X requested an EHC Plan needs assessment for her child B. The Council provided a final EHC Plan in April 2025.
9. Mrs X says the Council delayed in issuing the final EHC Plan. She says it delayed in steps in the process and failed to properly consult and consider B’s needs. She says it failed to name a suitable school in the EHC Plan. She says she has incurred legal costs and paid for her own occupational therapist report.

Analysis

10. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’) sets out the process for carrying out EHC assessments and producing EHC Plans. To comply with this, the Council should have issued the final EHC Plan around six weeks earlier than it did. This delay is not sufficient to justify our investigation into its causes.
11. The main injustice from any flawed needs assessment is that the EHC Plan does not meet the child’s needs. Mrs X had a right of appeal against the EHC Plan if she did not believe it meets B’s needs. It is reasonable to expect her to use that right. The Tribunal has wide ranging powers which includes the ability to award costs.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the Council’s delay in issuing an EHC Plan is not sufficient to justify our investigation. And it is reasonable to expect her to have appealed the content of an EHC Plan.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman