Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to name a school in an Education, Health, and Care Plan. Nor can we investigate a failure to provide the content of that plan or alternative educational provision. Mrs X has appealed to a Tribunal about the Council’s decision, and the law does not allow us to investigate under these circumstances.

The complaint

1. Mrs X said the Council were at fault because it named a school in her child’s Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X said this meant the Council had not properly considered safeguarding concerns she had raised about the school. Mrs X also said the Council had failed to comply with its general duty to provide alternative educational provision, while her child was not attending school.
2. Mrs X said this has had a significant effect on both her, because of her health and on her child (Y), who has missed out on education at an important time.

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. 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.
5. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Y, is a child who has an EHC Plan. In the academic year 2024-2025, they were attending School A. In mid-2025, Mrs X raised concerns about School, and this was near to the time of Y’s EHC review.
9. In July 2025, the Council issued a final EHC Plan naming School A. Mrs X appealed that decision to the Tribunal, saying she did not believe School A was a suitable placement. Mrs X put forward her reasons for why she believed this to be the case. Some of her concerns related to safeguarding matters.
10. The Council provide a response to Mrs X and set out why it did not believe her safeguarding concerns affected its decision to name School A. It also explained how it had communicated her concerns to another Authority.
11. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she has already appealed to the Tribunal about the Council’s decision to name School A. And as such the restriction in our powers, as highlighted at paragraph five, applies here.
12. Nor can we investigate a failure to provide the content of Y’s EHC Plan, or a failure to provide alternative educational provision, under the Council’s general s.19 duty.
13. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
14. This means that if a child is not attending school, and we decide the reason for non-attendance is linked to, or is a consequence of, a parent or young person’s disagreement about the educational placement in the EHC Plan, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision.
15. In so far as Mrs X’s complaint is concerned, the reason for Y’s absence is related to Mrs X’s dispute about the suitability of School A. Therefore, we cannot investigate any of Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the law does not allow us to investigate when an appeal right has been used, and there are no matters which are separable from that appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman