Summary: We cannot investigate a complaint about the school named in an Education Health and Care Plan. Miss X has appealed to the SEND Tribunal about this and therefore the law says we cannot investigate. Additionally, we will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in the annual review of the Education Health and Care Plan. The Council upheld the complaint, apologised and there are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the school named in her daughter’s (Y) Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan, and delays in the Council finalising the Plan after the annual review.
2. Miss X said this caused distress and uncertainty to her and Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (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 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)

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. Miss X complained about the school named in Y’s EHC Plan and about delays in the EHC review process.
10. Miss X has appealed to the Tribunal about the content of the EHC Plan, including the school named in it. Therefore, as outlined in paragraph four, we cannot investigate this part of the complaint.
11. We can consider matters which happened before the Council issued the final EHC Plan and therefore, I have considered the delays in the review process.
12. The EHC review took place in February 2025, and the Council did not meet the 12-week deadline for issuing a final plan after it decided to amend Y’s EHC Plan. Given it should also have complied with other deadlines to enable Y’s transition from one post-16 institution to another, it did not meet that deadline either.
13. In its complaint response, the Council provided apologies to Miss X and upheld the complaint, acknowledging the delays it had caused during the review process.
14. Additionally, I also note the Councils action plan, that it has shared with us and within which it has detailed service wide improvements it is making to the special educational needs team, including a review of its processes and increased staff levels. With that in mind, I am satisfied there are no service improvements or recommendations now needed, in response to this complaint, which are not already being implemented.
15. In considering all available information, I consider the Council’s actions here to be appropriate, and given the work already being done by the Council, there are no wider public interest issues to justify the Ombudsman carrying out a full investigation. Therefore, we will not investigate this complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We cannot investigate part of Miss X’s complaint because she has appealed to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate the remainder of Miss X’s complaint because there are no wider public interest issues to justify our investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman