Summary: We will not investigate X’s complaint about delays in amending an Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable to expect X to have appealed to the Tribunal and the delay is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. X says the Council delayed in amending an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by X which included the Council’s replies to X.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. X has an EHC Plan. The School held an annual review in December 2024. X was due to change course in September 2025. Two months later in February 2025 the Council issued a notice that it did not intend to amend the EHC Plan. This notice had appeal rights to the Tribunal. X chose not to appeal.
7. X says the Council then delayed considering amendments to the EHC Plan chiefly the amount of hours of provision. X says this caused the family upset, distress and a deterioration in mental health.

Analysis

8. X had a right of appeal to the Tribunal if the EHC Plan did not set out the provision they felt was needed. We usually consider it reasonable to expect complainants to appeal and there are no reasons why this should not apply here. This means we will not investigate whether the Council should have amended the EHC Plan earlier.
9. The Council had four weeks to issue its decision following the annual review. It took ten weeks. Six weeks is not significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation or remedy.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect X to have appealed to the Tribunal. And the delay here is not significant enough to warrant an investigation or remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman