Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about an alleged failure by the Council to secure specialist educational provision set out in two children's education, health and care plans. This is because we have already investigated this in response to a previous complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs P complains the Council did not ensure her children’s school was implementing the specialist provision, set out at section F of their education, health and care (EHC) plans. As a result of this, she says the children fell behind in their education and suffered anxiety about attending school.

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 there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered evidence provided by Mrs P and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
4. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs P has two children, both of whom are subject to EHC plans and attend a mainstream secondary school.
6. In November 2025 we issued our decision on a previous complaint from Mrs P. This complaint was about a delay by the Council in issuing amended EHC plans for the children following an annual review, and a failure by the Council to ensure their school was delivering the specialist provision set out at section F of their plans. We upheld the complaint on both points.
7. In particular, we noted the Council had been aware in July 2024 the school had said it would struggle to implement some of the specialist provision. Although we recognised the Council does not have a “watching brief”, whereby it must monitor the implementation of an EHC plan on a day-to-day basis, it has a duty to respond to concerns that elements of provision are not being delivered. We were not satisfied the Council had done so, upheld Mrs P’s complaint, and the Council agreed to pay a financial remedy to reflect the impact on the children of the loss of this provision.
8. There is no substantive difference between that complaint and this one. I am conscious Mrs P says there is an ongoing failure to by the school to implement the provision, but she made this complaint to us in August 2025, which means this investigation can only consider the events of the 2024/25 academic year, and nothing more recent. Our previous investigation, and the remedy the Council paid to Mrs P, was to address the loss of specialist provision during the same period.
9. As we cannot investigate the same complaint twice, or recommend a further remedy for the same complaint, there is nothing to be gained by continuing this investigation.

Back to top

Decision

10. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman