Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about the 2025 annual review of her daughter’s EHC plan because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains about the 2025 annual review of her daughter’s education, health and care (EHC) plan. She complains the Council failed to follow the correct process.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. There were problems with the 2024 annual review of Ms M’s daughter’s EHC plan. Ms M complained to us, and we upheld her complaint.
8. The 2024 annual review was not complete by the time of the 2025 annual review meeting. Ms M’s complaint concerns the way the Council managed the consequences.
9. The Council issued a single draft following the 2025 review meeting which it said incorporated changes from the 2024 and 2025 reviews. I believe Ms M wanted the Council to issue separate drafts for the 2024 and 2025 reviews. She complains the single draft issued by the Council did not reflect the changes suggested following the 2024 review meeting. She says the Council ignored her emails about the matter.
10. The Council sent me the emails between Ms M and officers handling the 2025 annual review. These show the Council issued a draft plan and invited Ms M to comment before finalising the plan. It is not for me to say whether the Council should have issued separate drafts following the 2024 and 2025 review meetings in the circumstances. As the Council issued a draft and invited Ms M to comment, there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.
11. We would not consider the contents of the draft or final Plan since Ms M had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal if she disagreed with the final Plan. The letter the Council sent with the final Plan explained Ms M’s rights.
12. There is, therefore, no worthwhile outcome from an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint about the 2025 annual review of her daughter’s EHC plan because there is not enough evidence of fault to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman