Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions while Miss X’s child was out of school, including delays in finalising their Education, Health, and Care Plan. The Council has upheld Miss X’s complaint and proposed a suitable financial remedy for Miss X’s injustice. There are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X was unhappy the Council did not finalise her child’s (Y) Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plan, within the statutory timescales. Additionally, she said it did not do enough to secure Y’s education provision, and this has had a significant impact on both her and Y’s health and wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), 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 Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X said the Council delayed finalising Y’s EHC Plan beyond the statutory timescales. The available evidence shows the Council issued its decision, late by over four months, at the point it finalised its decision in mid-July.
8. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint here and offered her a financial symbolic remedy to recognise her injustice.
9. Miss X was concerned about the EHC Plan delays, because they occurred at a time when Y was also out of full-time education. She told us the Council had not done enough to find Y a suitable provision and the provision the Council had secured, while Y was at home, was not suitable.
10. The Council also accepted that it did not do enough to secure alternative provision and there were delays in its response to her, including poor communication. It accepted this led to avoidable uncertainty for Miss X. It offered a symbolic financial remedy for the period, up until late June, where it said it then put in additional provision.
11. The Council offered Miss X a financial remedy of £1300, for her injustice as identified at paragraphs eight and ten. I am satisfied the offer is in line with our guidance on remedies and is a suitable remedy for her injustice. Therefore, we will not investigate. It is now open to Miss X to accept that offer if she wishes.
12. I understand from Miss X’s complaint correspondence, she is still concerned about the provision and content of Y’s finalised EHC Plan. Noting the law I have highlighted at paragraph three, we will not investigate this part of her complaint.
13. This is because Miss X could lodge an appeal to the Tribunal about these issues and, given we cannot direct the Council to change the content of a plan, or name a different placement, and only the Tribunal can, it would be reasonable to expect her to have appealed the content of Y’s EHC Plan.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint because the Council has upheld the complaint and proposed a suitable financial remedy for Miss X’s injustice. There are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman