Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to implement an order issued by the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). This is because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X. complains that the Council failed to issue a lawful Education Health and Care (EHC) plan for his daughter within the statutory timescale following his appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

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, section 34(B))
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 Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X’s daughter has an EHC plan, which was issued after his successful appeal to the Tribunal. Mr X complains that the Council failed to implement the tribunal’s order. He complains that the EHC plan the Council issued was not lawful, as there was no educational setting in Section I. He further complains that a lawful EHC plan was not issued within the appropriate timescale.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part. The correspondence Mr X has provided shows that the Tribunal order was issued on 2 April 2025 and the Final EHC plan on 30 May 2025, within the eleven-week timescale permitted. It was at this point that Mr X had the right to appeal to the Tribunal against its content. The fact that a further Final EHCP was issued in July 2025 is not relevant when ascertaining whether the Council adhered to the appropriate timescale.
9. The Council was within its rights to issue a Final EHC plan indicating a type of education in Section I, but without naming a specific setting. This is not fault on the Council’s part. Mr X’s recourse was to use his right to make a new appeal to the Tribunal and it was reasonable for him to do so. There are no grounds for the Ombudsman to intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is no evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman