Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the delay in issuing the final plan. Mr X’s appeal to a tribunal means we have no powers to consider much of his complaint. We will not look at the Council’s complaint handling in isolation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complained about the Council’s handling of his son’s EHC Plan. Mr X says the Council was late issuing a revised EHC Plan and named an inappropriate school and removed essential provision including transport. Mr X is unhappy with how the Council reached these decisions. Mr X says there were delays in dealing with his complaint and the Council failed to deal with it under the statutory complaints process for children’s services. Mr X wants his child’s EHC Plan amended.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. 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)
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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
7. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail.
8. 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))
9. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.
10. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
12. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

What I found

Background

13. Mr X’s son (Y) was due to transfer from secondary school to a post-16 institution in September 2025. Y has an EHC Plan. The deadline for the Council to issue a revised EHC Plan for Y was 31 March 2025. The Council failed to meet this deadline and eventually issued a final plan on 23 June.
14. Mr X was unhappy with the college the Council named in the EHC Plan, the provision contained, and how the Council decided these issues. Mr X complained to the Council and said his complaint should be dealt with under the statutory process for children’s social care services. In his complaint, Mr X also raised concerns about the Council removing Y’s transport and the number of SEN officers who had worked on his son’s case.
15. The Council disagreed with Mr X’s claim it should consider his complaint under the statutory complaints process, and it explained why. The Council issued responses under its corporate complaints process. The Council explained Mr X could challenge the EHC Plan via the Tribunal. Mr X could apply for transport to the college named in the EHC Plan, but it would not provide transport to another setting. The Council said three officers had worked on Y’s EHC Plan over the last two and half years and changing officers was sometimes unavoidable.
16. Mr X lodged an appeal against Y’s EHC Plan with the Tribunal.

Assessment

17. We will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint. The reasons for this are below.
18. The Council has accepted it was just under three months late issuing the final EHC Plan. This will have caused Mr X frustration and delayed his appeal rights. We asked the Council to remedy this delay by making a payment of £300. The Council agreed to our invitation. It should make the payment within four weeks of this decision. This is a suitable remedy and so further consideration of this point is not warranted.
19. Mr X is unhappy with the contents of his child’s EHC Plan and has appealed to the Tribunal. When a parent does this, it places the matter appealed and anything directly linked outside our jurisdiction. This incudes the college named, the provision in the EHC Plan, and how the Council decided the content of the plan. We are barred by the law from looking at these matters and so we cannot investigate. The transport to college is also linked to the appeal. Mr X could, however, apply to the Council and if unhappy with the response make a fresh complaint to the Ombudsman. We could then decide whether to investigate.
20. Mr X is also unhappy with how the Council dealt with his complaint. He refers to delay and the Council not considering his complaint under the statutory process for children’s social care complaints.
21. I have not seen any significant delay by the Council. Getting the Best from Complaints also makes it clear the statutory process for children’s social care complaints has a very specific remit. The Council has explained it does not apply to the matters Mr X complained about. I agree with the Council’s position.
22. We will not generally look at complaint handling in isolation if we are not looking at the matter which led to the original complaint. That is the case here and there is no good reason for us to deviate from that position and to investigate the Council’s complaint handling.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because:
• The Council has offered a suitable remedy for the delay.
• Much of the complaint is outside our jurisdiction because Mr X has appealed.
• We will not look at complaint handling in isolation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman