Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about delays agreeing a personal budget and issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan, and poor communication. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed agreeing a personal budget and making the direct payments for provision in her child, Y’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan and delayed issuing the final amended plan. She also complains of poor communication. She says this has caused uncertainty and distress. She wants to council to acknowledge the distress caused, agree the personal budget and direct payments for 2025/26 and improve its communication.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council held an annual review for Ms X’s child, Y, in February 2025.
6. In its complaint response, the Council accepted there had been poor communication and delays following the annual review. It upheld that:
• The caseworker had not always responded to Ms X’s communications.
• It had delayed agreeing the personal budget for Y’s provision from April 2025 onwards. It said this was due to the need to first complete an audit of the previous year’s direct payment.
• It should have issued Y’s final amended plan by mid- May 2025, but did not do so until the end of June 2025.
7. It said it had agreed to amend some inaccuracies in the plan and would do so by the end of July. It said Y’s personal budget and direct payments had now been approved. It apologised to Ms X for the poor communication and delays and offered her £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
8. In response to our enquiries, the Council told us that in April 2025, Y’s direct payment account had a large excess of funds. For this reason, it had decided to withhold any further direct payments at that time. However, it acknowledges it did not communicate this decision to Ms X. It said there was already sufficient funds in the account to pay for Y’s summer term provision, so Y did not miss out on any provision as a result.
9. I have seen evidence that the 2025/26 direct payment agreement is now in place with payments being made for Y’s provision from September 2025. The amended EHC Plan was issued at the end of August.
10. The Council also told us it was acting to improve its service by ensuring there was more robust oversight of personal budgets and direct payments as part of its SEN improvement plan.
11. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council has upheld Ms X’s complaint about delays and poor communication. Although I accept this has caused Ms X uncertainty and distress, the apology and offer of symbolic payment is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused. Y’s amended EHC Plan, personal budget and direct payment are now in place. It is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome or achieve anything more.
12. The Council currently has a SEN improvement plan in place which is being externally reviewed every six months to ensure progress. The plan includes actions to improve communication with families as well as improvements to oversight of personal budgets. Although I acknowledge there has been delay and poor communication in this case, an investigation would be unlikely to recommend further service improvements as there is already an action plan in place.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because it is unlikely an investigation would lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman