Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about the education her daughter has missed because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms M complained about her daughter G’s education. She said G was failed by her previous primary school and deregistered. She complained the Council failed to identify and meet G’s special educational needs. She says G missed out on education as a result. She wants the Council to pay compensation for the education G has missed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
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 normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
6. 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 as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

9. Ms M decided to remove her daughter from school in July 2024 and educate her at home. Following Ms M’s appeal to the SEND Tribunal, the Council agreed to undertake an education, health and care (EHC) needs assessment. The Council issued an EHC plan for G in March 2025. Ms M disagreed with the plan and appealed to the Tribunal again. However, she later decided to accept the plan and withdrew her appeal. G started at a new primary school in September 2025.
10. Ms M complained to us about G’s education in July 2025. Since making her complaint, she has also told us about problems with the annual review of G’s EHC plan and preparations for her transfer to secondary school this September.
11. We will only consider what happened in the 12 months before Ms M complained to us, that is from July 2024. Events before this are too old. Ms M could have complained sooner, and there are no good reasons to accept her complaint about events before July 2024 now. We cannot consider complaints about what has happened since Ms M complained to us, and specifically about G’s transfer to secondary school, because the Council must have an opportunity to respond first.
12. Ms M withdrew G from school in July 2024 and decided to educate her at home. This was no doubt a difficult decision and not one Ms M took lightly.
13. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about the school G missed. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify the investigation because Ms M decided to withdraw G from school herself.
14. The Council undertook an EHC needs assessment and issued an EHC plan in March 2025. G did not start school until September 2025. This was because Ms M disagreed with the plan at first and began an appeal.
15. We cannot consider Ms M’s complaint about the education G missed between March 2025 when the Council issued her plan and September 2025 when she started school. The law does not allow us to consider complaints when a parent has appealed about the same matter.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman