Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s delay in consulting with a placement for Ms X’s child’s post-16 education. This is because there is not enough evidence of injustice to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed its consultation on a placement for post-16 education for her child.
2. Ms X says the Council also failed to meet the statutory deadline to complete her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan), did not include her child’s views, and had poor communication with her throughout.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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 there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or 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 Ms X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Ms X complains she did not get her child’s completed EHC Plan by the March 31st 2025 statutory deadline. The Council did complete the EHC Plan on 17 March but Ms X did not get it until July. While this is a significant delay, the EHC Plan had already been agreed by Ms X and therefore did not cause significant enough injustice enough to warrant investigating.
7. Ms X requested the Council to consult with an educational placement in May. The Council actioned this in June. The placement was agreed by Panel in August.
8. There is no timeframe to complete consultations as the setting Ms X requested was an unregistered provider, so there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant investigating.
9. The Council upheld Ms X’s complaint about poor communication. This is a satisfactory remedy for the distress caused by poor communication.
10. The EHC Plan was completed within the statutory timeframe so this complaint was not upheld. The Council agreed to add Ms X’s child’s views to the amended EHC Plan.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of injustice to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman