Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has offered a suitable remedy for the delay and its poor complaint handling. Investigation by the Ombudsman would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained about the Council’s handling of her request it issue her child (Y) with an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mrs X says the Council failed to gather the required information and took too long to issue the plan. This left Y without the necessary support and a suitable education. Mrs X is also unhappy with the Council’s handling of her complaint and has raised concerns about the content of the EHC Plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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, or
• there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. 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)
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 Tribunal in this decision statement.
6. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), 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. Mrs X asked the Council to assess her child for an EHC Plan. The Council refused Mrs X’s first request but agreed to a second application. Mrs X complained the Council had failed to request the required information from her child’s school. This, combined with other delays, had left her child without suitable support. The Council eventually responded to Mrs X after we asked it what was happening. In its response to Mrs X the Council:
• Confirmed it had asked her child’s school for information as part of both requests. The school had replied on both occasions.
• Accepted it took just under two weeks too long to refuse her original request for an EHC Plan.
• Accepted it was seven weeks late issuing the final EHC Plan, but that funding had been backdated to the 20-week date when it should have completed the process. Before the Council issued the EHC Plan and its extra funding, Y’s school was expected to support them through its ordinary funding.
• Apologised for poor complaint handling.
• Offered a total remedy of £1000 for the distress and time and trouble caused.
10. While I understand Mrs X’s frustrations, we will not start an investigation into her complaint.
11. Based on the evidence available, the Council has accepted fault, apologised, and offered a suitable remedy for the total delay which was just under nine weeks. Its backdating of the funding by seven weeks negates much of this. The Council is correct that before it issued the final EHC Plan, the school was responsible for managing Y’s education. We have no powers to consider what happens in schools. An investigation is not therefore warranted as we would not recommend any extra remedy on top of the one the Council has already offered. Further consideration of the complaint would not lead to a different outcome.
12. Should Mrs X have any concerns about the content of Y’s EHC Plan then it is reasonable for her to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the Council has offered a suitable remedy and an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman