Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. If Mrs X was unhappy with the content of her child’s plan, it was reasonable for her to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Education Needs and Disability).

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She says the Council named a type of school but failed to name a setting and it failed to include relevant information within the Plan. Mrs X says the Council’s actions have caused avoidable distress. Mrs X is also unhappy with the way the Council handled her complaint.
2. Mrs X requests the Council name a suitable school in Section I of her child’s EHC Plan and include provision recommended by professionals.

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. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants

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

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).
6. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. We will not start an investigation into Mrs X’s complaint.
10. Mrs X says the Council failed to name a secondary school in her son’s EHC Plan by 15 February 2025 and she says this is unlawful. However, a Council can lawfully issue a final EHC Plan with a type of school or no school named. The Council completed the phase transfer before the deadline and it named a type of school. While it is frustrating the Council did not name a setting, it does not represent fault.
11. Mrs X is also unhappy with how the Council decided the content of the EHC Plan. Parents who are unhappy with the content of an EHC plan have a right of appeal to the Tribunal. It is the mechanism set up by Parliament for parents to challenge such decisions. We expect parents to use their right of appeal unless it is unreasonable for them to do so. The Ombudsman cannot say the EHC Plan should be changed or that it is unlawful – but the Tribunal can. It was therefore reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Tribunal.
12. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. We do not investigate complaints about the way the Council handled a complaint if we cannot investigate the substantive matter of the complaint.
13. I understand Mrs X is unhappy with events that occurred after May 2025, after she submitted her Stage 1 complaint. Mrs X can submit a fresh complaint to the Council regarding the matters that occurred after May 2025 to allow the Council to investigate and respond. If Mrs X remains unhappy after exhausting the Council’s complaints process, she can bring the new complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal if she was unhappy with the EHC Plan the Council issued.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman