Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed assessing the complainant’s child’s special educational needs and identifying an appropriate specialist school for her. This is because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council delayed assessing her child’s needs and identifying an appropriate specialist school place for her.

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 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)).
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. Miss X’s daughter has an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan which was issued in October 2025. At the point at which Miss X came to the Ombudsman, the EHC plan had not been issued, and the Council had exceeded the timescale for doing so. Miss X complained that, as a result of the delay, the Council had been unable to make a place available for her daughter at a specialist placement and was intending to name a mainstream school in the EHC plan. She said mainstream education could not meet her daughter’s needs.
8. In response to her complaint, the Council accepted that it had failed to issue the EHC plan within the timescale set out in the statutory guidance. It apologised for this, and offered to make a symbolic payment of £100 for each month of delay.
9. The Ombudsman will not investigate this complaint. This is because our intervention would not add anything to the response the Council has already made. The Council has confirmed that the EHC plan should have been issued in April 2025 but was not issued until October 2025. It has said that it will make a symbolic payment of £550 to Miss X in recognition of the delay. This is in line with what the Ombudsman would be likely to recommend in the circumstances of the case and investigation would not therefore add anything significant.
10. We can make no comment on whether mainstream or specialist education is appropriate for Miss X’s child. If she was unhappy with the provision set out in the EHC plan, it would have been reasonable for her to use her right to appeal to the Tribunal. We will not intervene.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because our intervention would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman