Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council failing to provide B with an education as the Tribunal is deciding what that education should be. The Council’s delay in issuing a decision notice following an Education Health and Care Plan review is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has failed to ensure his child, B, has received an education since November 2024.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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.
3. 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)
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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. B has had an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) since June 2024. Mr X says he removed B from the named School Y, in November 2024. He says he had safeguarding concerns and believed it was not meeting B’s needs. School Y held an emergency review. The notes provided to the Council show that review to be in early January 2025.
8. The Council considered the reviews findings. It wrote to Mr X towards the end of March 2025 and said it would not amend the EHC Plan. This notice explained Mr X could appeal the Council’s decision to the Tribunal. He did so in May and the final hearing is set for April 2026.
9. Mr X says B is out of school. He says School Y is not suitable. He wants the Council to fund an alternative.

Analysis

10. We cannot investigate how B should be educated, including where this should happen. This is because the Tribunal is deciding this.
11. The Council has said the place at School Y is available. We are unlikely to find the Council has failed to provide an education to B since November 2024.
12. The Council has accepted it delayed outside the legal time limits for issuing its decision following the review. The delay is not significant enough to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot investigate where B should be educated and how, as the Tribunal is considering this. There is insufficient fault or injustice in the delay in issuing a decision following an EHC Plan review.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman