Summary: We cannot investigate part of this complaint about the Council’s decision on the school it named in an Education, Health, and Care Plan. Miss X had a right of appeal on that decision, and it would have been reasonable to expect her to use it. Nor will we investigate the length of time it took, for the Council to complete the plan, after an annual review. The Council has already remedied Miss X’s injustice here and there are no wider public interest issues to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Miss X was unhappy with how the Council handled concerns about her child (Y’s) Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan. She said it delayed issuing a plan after an annual review and named a school that could not meet Y’s needs. Miss X said this has caused her stress and has had a detrimental impact on Y’s education.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
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. 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)

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 young person who has an EHC Plan. In November 2024, Y’s school held an annual review. In cases where the Council decide to amend an EHC Plan, after a review, it should take no longer than 12 weeks to complete the process, to comply with the statutory requirements.
9. In February 2025, Miss X complained to the Council, concerned about Y’s education provision, and the time it was taking for the Council to issue a final EHC Plan for Y.
10. The Council issued a final EHC Plan in August 2025, which was a delay of around 28 weeks beyond the time it should have taken.
11. During the Council’s complaint procedures, it accepted it had delayed finalising Y’s EHC Plan and said it had not communicated adequately with Miss X, about her concerns. It offered Miss X a symbolic financial remedy of £1300 to recognise her injustice caused by these faults.
12. Because this exceeds the amount we would ordinarily recommend, were we to investigate, I am satisfied the Council has offered a suitable remedy for Miss X’s injustice here. In addition, we have information about how the Council is working to improve its service in this respect and so there is no wider public interest issues remaining, to justify investigating.
13. Finally, Miss X said she is still concerned Y’s school cannot meet their needs and wants the Council to consult with other schools. We cannot investigate this part of Miss X’s complaint because Miss X had a right of appeal to challenge this decision. Only the Tribunal can direct the Council to name a different school and we cannot. Additionally, Parliament set the Tribunal up for this specific purpose and so it would have been reasonable to expect Miss X to have used her appeal right.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We cannot investigate part of Miss X’s complaint because she had an appeal right, which was reasonable for her to use and of the other part, the Council has already provided a suitable remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman