Summary: We cannot investigate part of Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s decision to end her child, Z’s, Education, Health and Care Plan because Mrs Y appealed the decision to the SEND Tribunal, and the law says we cannot investigate. For the remainder, there is insufficient evidence of fault and Mrs Y was not caused a significant enough injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complained the Council:
1. ceased her child, Z’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan without proper consultation; and;
2. failed to maintain her child’s EHC Plan during her appeal period in line with the SEND Code of Practice.
2. Mrs Y said this has caused her distress and frustration.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Mrs Y has a child, Z, who has an Education, Health and Care Plan. Following a re-assessment of Z’s needs in February 2025 the Council sent Mrs Y an intention to cease letter. The letter asked Mrs Y to send her views to the Council about the matter. Mrs Y said she did not receive the letter.
10. In May 2025, the Council sent a final decision letter to Mrs Y. It told her it would cease the EHC Plan and informed her about her right to appeal the decision to the SEND Tribunal.
11. Mrs Y complained the Council failed to consult relevant professionals before deciding to end Z’s EHC Plan.
12. Mrs Y appealed the decision to cease Z’s EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal in July 2025.

Decision to end Z’s EHC Plan

13. We cannot investigate Mrs Y’s complaint that the Council failed to consult relevant professionals during Z’s re-assessment, or the Council’s decision to end Z’s EHC Plan. This is because Mrs Y appealed the decision to end the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal.
14. The decision, and the process the Council followed to make its decision, are not separable from matters the Tribunal will consider, and the law says we cannot investigate.
15. The Council sent an email to Mrs Y in February 2025 stating its intent to end the EHC Plan and has provided the Ombudsman with a copy. Mrs Y said she did not receive this email. We will not investigate this part of Mrs Y’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify us investigating.

Maintaining Z’s EHC Plan during the appeal

16. Councils must continue to maintain an EHC Plan until the time for bringing an appeal has passed or an appeal that has been registered is concluded. This means that the full provision should remain available to the young person during the appeal period.
17. The Council sent Mrs Y a decision to cease letter in late May 2025. It should therefore have maintained the EHC Plan until late July 2025 at the earliest. However, Mrs Y appealed the decision to the SEND Tribunal. The Council should therefore have maintained the EHC Plan for the duration of the appeal.
18. Mrs Y told the Council it failed to maintain her child’s EHC Plan between early June 2025 and late September 2025; initially during the two-month period she had to make her appeal, and later during her active appeal to the SEND Tribunal. While this is the case, the period Mrs Y complained about is less than eight weeks of education, accounting for school holidays. Consequently, the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

19. We cannot investigate part of Mrs Y’s complaint because she has appealed to a tribunal. We will not investigate the remainder because there is insufficient evidence of fault and insufficient injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman