Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of school consultations and its failure to obtain a specialist report before issuing a child’s Education, Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal, and the issues raised are not separable from that appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council dealt with other matters.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to issue a final Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) for her child, Y, within the statutory deadline. She complains the Council failed to obtain an updated speech and language therapy (SALT) report before issuing the Plan, which caused outdated information to be shared during school consultations. Mrs X complains this caused one school to refuse offering Y a place. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of school consultations and poor communication around these.
2. Mrs X complains, after a second annual review meeting in March, the Council failed to issue an amended final Plan that included information based on the updated SALT report.

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 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)
5. 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.
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. (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 the complainant.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. In February 2025, the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan. Y was due to transfer to secondary school in September 2025, meaning the Council had to issue the Plan by 15 February. Based on the evidence I have seen, the Council issued the Plan within this timeframe and Mrs X was able to promptly access her appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate this matter because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
10. Mrs X complains the Council failed to obtain an updated SALT report before issuing the Plan, which affected certain consultation responses from schools, including from her parental preference. She complains about the Council’s handling of school consultations since the Plan was issued in February. Mrs X wants the Council to update the Plan so that it includes the advice in the SALT report. She thinks the Council should consult her parental preferences again and properly respond to one of the school’s funding requests so Y has a suitable school placement. We cannot investigate these matters because the alleged fault in these processes is directly linked to Mrs X’s SEND Tribunal appeal about the provision and suitability of the placement named in Y’s Plan. If she has not already done so, Mrs X could have raised these issues with the Tribunal so that it could resolve any disputes using its own powers.
11. Mrs X complains that the Council failed to complete a review of Y’s EHC Plan following a further review meeting in March 2025. The Council said it would not issue a new final EHC plan due to the ongoing appeal, but the information would be provided as part of Mrs X’s appeal to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate this element of Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely that we would find fault with this approach by the Council.
12. It is not proportionate for us to consider Mrs X’s complaint about poor communication alone when we are not investigating the substantive matters complained of.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of school consultations and its failure to obtain a specialist report before issuing a child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal, and the issues raised are not separable from that appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council dealt with other matters.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman