Summary: There was no fault in the Council’s decision it was satisfied with the way a school had implemented specialist provision, set out in the complainant’s son’s education, health and care plan. We have not investigated the other elements of this complaint, because they fall outside our jurisdiction, or because the Council has not had the opportunity to address them through its own complaints process. We have therefore completed our investigation.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Miss G.
2. Miss G complains the Council did not ensure her son’s school implemented the specialist provision set out in section F of his education, health and care (EHC) plan. As a result, she says her son, P, fell behind academically and was subject to school disciplinary procedures, which caused him distress and a loss of confidence.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and s34H(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
5. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated the element of Miss G’s complaint set out at paragraph 2.
9. Miss G has also submitted a series of other complaints, but for the following reasons I have not investigated them:

• P’s school gave the Council misleading information about his academic progress. We cannot investigate a complaint about the school’s conduct in isolation, and it is more logical to consider how the Council assessed this information as part of Miss G’s complaint about section F provision, rather than as a complaint in its own right;
• the school misled the Council about the training it had provided to its staff. Again, we cannot investigate this as a complaint in its own right, because it concerns the school’s conduct. Rather, it is more logical to address this as part of Miss G’s complaint about section F provision;
• the school retrospectively completed a risk assessment for a day trip, rather than completing it in advance as it should have done. This is a complaint about the school’s conduct, and not the Council, and so falls outside of our jurisdiction;
• the school falsely claimed to have ‘co-produced’ reports about P with Miss G. This is a complaint about the school’s conduct and not the Council. It also did not form part of Miss G’s complaint to the Council, and would therefore be premature for investigation by the Ombudsman, even if it were in our jurisdiction;
• the school has not properly responded to a subject access request (SAR) Miss G made. This is a complaint about the school’s conduct and not the Council. In addition, complaints about data access and protection are normally a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), and so we generally will not investigate them anyway;
• the Council issued an “unlawful” decision to maintain P’s EHC plan after an annual review, before withdrawing this decision and agreeing to amend it instead. It is not unlawful for the Council to decide to maintain an EHC plan, even if a person disagrees with this decision; and the Council withdrew this decision within the statutory deadline for doing so, so there is no evidence of fault here. And, if the Council had not withdrawn this decision, and reissued P’s EHC plan as it was, Miss G would have the right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal, which places the substantive matter outside our jurisdiction; and
• the Council did not issue P’s amended EHC plan within the statutory timescale. This did not form part of Miss G’s complaint to the Council (and indeed could not have formed part of the complaint, because the statutory deadline had not yet expired when Miss G submitted it). It is therefore premature for investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss G and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

EHC plans

12. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an EHC plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC plan is set out in sections.
13. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
14. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

Miss G’s complaint

15. In July 2025, Miss G submitted a stage 1 complaint to the Council. She noted the Council had recently completed an audit of P’s school’s implementation of his section F provision, which she said showed it was not providing some elements of the plan at all, some inconsistently, and that it had made changes to other elements without agreement. Miss G also complained the school had stopped communicating with her, and that it provided contradictory evidence about staff training.
16. Miss G noted the Council’s audit had witnessed a positive period for P in school, but said this was not representative of his normal experience there, and said the school did not perform as well when not being inspected. She said she wished to raise a safeguarding concern because of what she saw as neglect by the school, and listed several outcomes she sought from her complaint, including more detail about his section F provision, and a financial remedy for the failure to properly implement it.
17. The Council responded in August. It noted P had attended the school until July, and that the Council had completed an audit on its implementation of his section F provision in June. The Council said the audit had “revealed some areas in which the provision was being partially delivered or that further support was required to ensure [it] was in place”.
18. The Council explained it would normally offer support to the school under these circumstances, but as P was due to transfer to a different school in September, it would instead focus its support on the new school. It said it had been in contact with the new school and explained how it was seeking to support his transition there, including the implementation of his section F provision.
19. Miss G submitted a stage 2 complaint a few days later. She accused the Council of minimising the school’s failure to implement section F, and criticised it for waiting until June to carry out its audit, despite the fact she had begun raising concerns in October 2024. Miss G also highlighted the Council had not provided evidence to show what provision the school had delivered, and what it had not, despite having asked for this in her stage 1 complaint.
20. Miss G complained the Council had not acknowledged its statutory duties and “unlawful” decisions, including its duty to secure section F, a delay in issuing P’s previous EHC plan, and its initial decision to maintain this plan after a more recent annual review. She also said the Council’s response had not addressed the impact of the fault on P or on Miss G herself, or offered a remedy for this.
21. The Council responded in September. It noted Miss G had referred to the report produced by the Council, following the section F audit in June. However, while it acknowledged the school had not fully implemented the section F provision as set out in the EHC plan, the Council said “the school’s practice was not found to be inadequate”, based on its overall observations, and that it did not consider there was cause to be concerned about it.
22. The Council responded in turn to each of Miss G’s comments about specific elements of the section F provision, explaining why it was satisfied with the school’s rationale for not implementing it, or for doing something different. The Council said, as these were “small tweaks” to the provision, it was not necessary to carry out a follow-up visit, although it intended to visit the school again in the Autumn Term to provide some further support.
23. The Council considered each of the statutory duties Miss G listed, but explained why it did not share her view it had failed to discharge these. The Council also explained it did not agree P had “missed out on or received inconsistent” section F provision, and so did not agree Miss G should receive a remedy for this.
24. Following this, Miss G referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in October.

Back to top

Analysis

25. The Ombudsman’s role is to review the way a council has made its decisions. We may criticise a council if, for example, it has not followed an appropriate procedure, not considered relevant information, or unduly delayed making a decision. We call this ‘fault’ and, where we find it, we can consider the impact of the fault and ask the council in question to address this.
26. But we do not make operational or policy decisions on a council’s behalf, or provide a right of appeal against its decisions. If we find a council has acted without fault, then we cannot criticise it, even if the complainant feels strongly it has made the wrong decision. We do not uphold a complaint simply because a person disagrees with something a council has done.
27. In this case, I acknowledge, as the Council says, that P’s school did not implement all of his section F provision as set out in his EHC plan. The Council has explained the school found some elements of the provision to be ineffective, and took a different approach to implementing some other elements. On a strict interpretation of the plan, this should not have happened.
28. However, the Council has also explained that, upon review, it was satisfied with the school’s approach to implementing the provision, and did not believe it gave any cause for concern. It highlighted, in particular, P’s excellent attendance record, and evidence it considered showed he had been making progress at school, albeit still below the expected level for his age.
29. I understand Miss G strongly disagrees with the Council’s position, and in doing so has provided her own analysis of the evidence the Council has relied on. But, while Miss G is entitled to this view, it does not mean the Council is at fault for drawing different conclusions; and it is not the role of the Ombudsman to settle a difference of opinion like this. All I can say is the Council took the proper steps to investigate the matter, and made a decision it was entitled to, based on the evidence it had seen. I have no grounds to criticise it for this.
30. I note Miss G criticised the Council for what she saw as a delay in carrying out its audit. As I have explained, we recognise it is not practical for a council to supervise the day-to-day delivery of an EHC plan, but we consider it should respond promptly to any reasonable concerns a person raises about the way a plan is being implemented. I agree, therefore, there is potential fault by the Council, if (as Miss G says) it delayed 8-9 months in checking up with the school.
31. But I am also conscious Miss G did not actually raise this is a specific point in her (otherwise very detailed) complaint to the Ombudsman, and so it cannot really form a proper part of my investigation. More importantly though, given the Council was evidently satisfied with what the school was doing, there is no reason to suspect it would have drawn a different conclusion, had it carried out the audit earlier.
32. Part of Miss G’s complaint is that the school providing misleading information about P’s progress, and about the training its staff had received. I have explained why I cannot investigate these matters as standalone complaints, though I accept they are relevant to the Council’s consideration of how the school implemented section F.
33. However, as I have already noted, it is not fault for the Council to draw different conclusions to Miss G about the significance of the evidence provided by the school. The Council has given a proper explanation for why it was satisfied with the school’s implementation of the provision, and it is not for me to draw my own conclusions about the evidence, or seek to impose a different interpretation on the Council. While Miss G does not agree with the Council’s decision, this does not give me any grounds to uphold her complaint.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman