Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed taking appropriate action to implement the outcome of the complainant’s appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). Our intervention would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made or lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant. Ms X, complains that the Council:

• delayed issuing a final Education Health and Care (EHC) plan within the statutory timescale;
• failed to secure the therapies ordered by the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability);
• failed to properly respond to her complaint.

2. As a result of the fault on the Council’s part, Ms X’s daughter has missed out on provision to which she was entitled, and has suffered detriment to her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X’s daughter has an EHC plan. Ms X appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) about the content of the EHC plan. The appeal hearing took place in November 2024. Ms X’s complaint lies against the Council’s failure to take appropriate action following the conclusion of the Tribunal process.
7. Ms X complains, and the Council has accepted, that it did not issue the EHC plan in final form within the timetable set out in law. The correspondence she has provided indicates that it was delayed until the beginning of July 2025. The Council also accepts that it failed to respond appropriately to Ms X’s formal complaints under its complaints procedure and has apologised.
8. Ms X further complains that the Council delayed securing the therapies set out in the EHC plan and ordered by the Tribunal. Again, the Council has accepted that it was at fault and has apologised.
9. Ms X’s complaint has therefore been substantively upheld. In recognition of its fault, the Council has offered to make symbolic payments to Ms X totalling £2550 for the failure to secure the therapies, as well as £500 to recognise the time and trouble she was put to in making her complaint.
10. When a complaint has been upheld before a complainant came to the Ombudsman, the question for us is whether further investigation is warranted. If the Council’s findings are reasonable and any remedy proportionate, we are unlikely to intervene.
11. In this case, the Council has accepted the fault Mrs X alleged and apologised for it. The remedy it has offered is proportionate and is broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would be likely to recommend in the circumstances of the case. Our intervention is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because our intervention would not add anything significant to the response the Council has already made, or lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman