Summary: We cannot investigate the parts of Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of an Education Health and Care Plan which overlaps with a Tribunal appeal. We will not investigate the rest of her complaint as we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already offered.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council produced an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) which did not meet D’s needs, then failed to provide the provision set out in the EHC Plan. She says the Council’s communication with her was poor.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
3. 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.
4. 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:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• 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

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council’s replies to her.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X’s child, D, has additional needs. Mrs X requested an EHC Plan needs assessment. At first the Council refused to issue an EHC Plan and Mrs X appealed to the Tribunal. The Council agreed in November 2024 to issue an EHC Plan. It did so in January 2025. The EHC Plan named School Z as a suitable setting for D’s education.
8. Mrs X disagreed and appealed to the Tribunal. In March 2025 she requested s19 support as D had not attended School Z.
9. The Tribunal ended in August 2025. The Council had agreed to name School Y, Mrs X’s preference. D started attending School Y in September 2025.
10. Mrs X complained to the Council about her experience. She said D had missed education and the Council’s communication and approach had been poor. The Council in reply accepted some failings. It offered apologies and £3500. Mrs X says this is not an adequate amount.

Analysis

11. We cannot investigate why the Council named School Z or whether School Z or another school should have been named in the EHC Plan in January 2025. This is because Mrs X appealed to the Tribunal. We cannot investigate what education was suitable for D during the Tribunal period.
12. The Council’s remedy offer is in line with our remedies guidance and we are unlikely to achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because we cannot investigate issues not separable from a Tribunal appeal. And we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already offered.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman