Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s response to her child being unable to attend school and its delay in issuing an Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has already accepted fault and offered a suitable remedy. Investigation by us would be unlikely to add anything further.

The complaint

1. Miss X said the Council took too long to issue an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her child, and failed to respond adequately when the child was unable to attend school before final GCSE examinations. She said the effect on her child’s health and on her own was serious. She wanted the complaint looked at again and further action taken.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. In response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council accepted its communications with her were poor. It also accepted it took six months to long to issue a final EHC Plan for her child. I note the child ceased to attend school in late March 2025, with GCSE examinations due to start in mid-May 2025. The Council’s potential duty to offer alternative educational provision would have started 15 school days after it became aware of the absence. Allowing for two weeks of school holidays in April 2025, that duty would have started very close to the date of the child’s first examination.
7. The Council apologised for its poor communications and the delay in issuing the EHC Plan. It said this was part of a general problem coping with an increased volume of requests in line with the national trend. It told Miss X it had since made progress reducing waiting times by employing additional caseworkers. It offered her £600 for the delay of six months in issuing the EHC Plan, and £500 for the distress caused by its failings.
8. Were we to investigate, find fault and consider remedy. It is unlikely we would recommend more. We would normally recommend £100 per month for delay in issuing an EHC Plan. We would be unable to offer an opinion on the possible health effects of the Council’s actions. It is also unlikely we would recommend more than a £500 payment for distress given the usual scale of our recommended remedies. And we would be unlikely to recommend further changes beyond increased staffing given the cause of the delay related to volume of work.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because this would be unlikely to lead to a recommendation of further remedy beyond that already offered by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman