Summary: We will not investigate part of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to secure the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan or provide alternative provision because it is late. We will not investigate these matters after July 2024 because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate the remainder because Mrs X has a right to appeal to a tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to:
1. secure the content of her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan since 2021;
2. organise alternative education when Y became too unwell to attend school since 2021.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused her distress and uncertainty. She said Y missed out on their education as a result.
3. Mrs X wants the Council to create an Education Other than at School (EOTAS) package for Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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.
7. 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)

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

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Matters before July 2024

10. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman in July 2025. Mrs X complained about matters that happened more than 12 months before this date and which she was aware of at the time. Therefore, any issues that took place before July 2024 are late.
11. I have seen no good reasons Mrs X could not have complained to the Ombudsman about these matters sooner. Consequently, we will not investigate any matter that happened before July 2024.

Matters after July 2024

12. In September 2024 Y was due to start college. Y tried to attend with the support of Mrs X but ultimately did not due to their mental health. The Council provided some support via its early help services.
13. In its complaint response to Mrs X in April 2025 the Council explained:
1. an EHC annual review took place in early 2025 to consider Y’s needs;
2. it had no medical evidence to suggest Y was unable to attend the college named in section I;
3. it considered the college in section I was suitable for Y; and
4. apologised for failing to inform Mrs X about a change in Y’s casework officer.
14. In September 2025, the Council made a new final EHC Plan for Y naming the same college.

Analysis

15. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
16. The Council considered the college was suitable for Y and secured the content of their EHC Plan by virtue of naming the college in section I. When Y was not attending, it considered the EHC annual review paperwork but ultimately decided the college placement was suitable. It provided support via its early help service to try to engage Y, but this did not result in Y attending the college.
17. There is insufficient evidence of fault in how the Council secured the content of Y’s EHC Plan to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman, and so we will not investigate.
18. Mrs X said the Council failed to provide alternative provision to Y when they became unable to attend due to their mental health. However, once a child finishes their final year of high school and turns 16, the section 19 duty no longer applies. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence of fault for this period to warrant an investigation.
19. We will not investigate how the Council secured the content of Y’s EHC Plan from September 2025. This is because if Mrs X is dissatisfied with the named placement in section I she can appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The Ombudsman cannot direct the Council to change the named placement in section I. Only the Tribunal can do this. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect Mrs X to use her right of appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

20. We will not investigate part of Mrs X’s complaint because it is late. We will not investigate another part because there is insufficient evidence of fault. We will not investigate the remainder because Mrs X has a right to appeal to a tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman