Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about delays in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan and the suitability of her child’s education provision. The Council have offered a suitable remedy, and it would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the tribunal about the contents of the plan.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide her child, Y with a suitable education. She says there were delays in issuing Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and Y’s education provision is not sufficient to meet their educational and emotional needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. 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)
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 SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X’s child, Y, has an EHC Plan.
8. We have previously investigated a complaint about alternative provision and will not consider these matters again. Here we are assessing matters after October 2024.
9. In September 2024 the Council decided to assess Y for an EHC Plan. The Council did not issue the final EHC Plan until May 2025. This was a delay of nearly five months.
10. The Council have explained that due to a shortage of educational psychologists there was a delay in assessing Y. They have accepted this was fault and apologised to Mrs X offering a symbolic remedy of £450. This is a suitable remedy in line with our guidance.
11. Mrs X also complains Y’s education provision is not sufficient to meet their educational and emotional needs. The SEND Tribunal considers appeals against the content of EHC Plans. It would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the tribunal if she feels the education provision in the EHC Plan is not sufficient to meet Y’s needs.
12. Mrs X also complains of poor communication.
13. The Council provided Mrs X information through a subject access request. Some of the information contained professional emails where Council officers discussed a discrepancy in an account Mrs X provided at a meeting.
14. The Council have provided reassurance the Council did not think Mrs X intentionally mislead professionals. The Council have apologised for the distress and offered a further symbolic remedy of £200. This is a suitable remedy in line with our guidance.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. The Council have offered a suitable remedy, and it would be reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the tribunal about the contents of the plan.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman