Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s education. Miss X is unhappy with the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It was reasonable for Miss X to appeal this to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability).

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complained about the Council’s handling of her child’s (Y) education. Miss X is unhappy with the school named in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and how the Council decided this. Miss X says the Council delayed in making a decision.

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. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
4. 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)
5. 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.

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. We will not start an investigation into Miss X’s complaint.
9. The Council has accepted delay in the EHC Plan process, but the injustice from this is not significant enough to warrant us investigating.
10. The remaining and main issue at the heart of this case is the school named in Y’s EHC Plan and how it was decided. The Council considers the school named suitable for Y’s needs. Miss X disagrees with this and how the Council has reached its decision.
11. Parents who want to challenge the content of an EHC Plan have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. It is the mechanism set up by Parliament for parents to challenge such decisions. We expect parents to use this right unless it is not reasonable for them to do so. The Tribunal can order councils to change EHC Plans. This is not something we can do and so we cannot achieve the outcome Miss X wants. The Council’s decision-making is directly linked to the content of the EHC Plan and cannot be separated. It was reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal and so we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because it was reasonable for her to appeal to the Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman