Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of Mr X’s request it assess his child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. An investigation would not add anything to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome. The injustice is also not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mr X, complained about the Council’s handling of his request it assess his child for an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mr X says the Council failed to send the decision letter on time. Mr X says communication was poor and the Council failed to acknowledge his complaint. Mr X says the Council’s actions caused uncertainty during an already stressful time.

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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X asked the Council to assess his child for an EHC Plan on 25 June 2025. The Council had six weeks to decide whether to proceed with the assessment. It therefore had until 06 August to make a decision. Mr X complained to the Council on 09 August to say he had not received a decision. Mr X sent a further complaint on 15 August to say he had still not been informed of the decision. Mr X had unsuccessfully tried to call the Council to find out what was happening.
6. The Council replied to Mr X’s complaint on 01 October. It said a decision letter refusing Mr X’s request had been sent on three occasions – most recently on 03 September. It said technical difficulties including encryption may have caused problems. The Council said it was sorry Mr X had not been contacted directly by a caseworker and that his stage 1 complaint had not been acknowledged. It had, however, been responded to within 10 working days.
7. We will not start an investigation into Mr X’s complaint. The Council has offered a proportionate and reasonable response. The Council apologised and Mr X has received a decision on his request for an assessment. An investigation would not add anything to the Council’s response or achieve a different outcome. Also, while I understand Mr X’s frustrations, the delay by the Council did not cause an injustice significant enough to warrant our involvement.
8. We will also not generally investigate complaint handling as a standalone issue if we are not going to look at the issue which led to the original complaint. I note the Council responded to Mr X without significant delay and so consideration of the Council’s complaint handling is not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add anything to the Council’s response. The injustice is also not significant enough to warrant our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman