Summary: We cannot investigate this matter. This is because Ms X and Mr Y have appealed to the tribunal which is the correct mechanism to challenge the Council’s decision to cease the Education, Health and Care Plan. All parts of their complaint are connected to this and cannot be investigated.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council decided to cease her adult child’s (Mr Y) Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Ms X said the Council gave her wrong advice about the EHC Plan not being valid at university which prompted her to withdraw her appeal to the tribunal. Ms X lost the legal right to challenge this decision at tribunal. This meant the Council did not support Mr Y during his studies which disrupted his education and caused emotional distress. Ms X wants the Council to refund Mr Y’s course fees and maintain the EHC Plan. Ms X also complained the Council failed in its corporate parenting duty.

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 no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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 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)
5. We cannot investigate the council’s conduct during an appeal. This includes anything a complainant could have raised with the Tribunal at any stage of the appeal, or which the Tribunal has considered on its own initiative, or which could have been a part of the Tribunal’s deliberations in resolving the appeal (R v Local Commissioner ex parte Bradford [1979]) and R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)  
6. 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 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms X, Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Reviewing EHC Plans

9. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. Following the review meeting the council must issue a decision to either amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
10. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal.
11. If the child’s parents or the young person disagrees with the decision to cease the EHC Plan, the council must continue to maintain the EHC Plan until the time has passed for bringing an appeal, or when an appeal has been registered, until it is concluded.
12. The SEN Code (paragraph 9.201) states a council is not responsible to maintain an EHC Plan when a young person starts higher education. EHC Plans cannot be enforced in universities. Support in universities is instead managed through Disabled Students Allowance (DSA).

Appeal rights

13. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s decision to cease to maintain an EHC Plan.
14. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
15. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents or young person. If the parent or young person goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the Tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded. We would not usually look at the period while any changes to the EHC Plan are finalised, so long as the council follows the statutory timescales to make those amendments.

What happened

16. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.

Annual review and the decision to cease Mr Y’s EHC Plan

17. The Council held an annual review meeting in the middle of March 2024. The Council’s decision was to cease the EHC Plan form the end of July 2024 as Mr Y said he was going to university. The Council shared the outcome of the annual review with Ms X in the middle of April 2024 and said there is a right of appeal.
18. The Council emailed Ms X in the middle of June and explained when Mr Y goes to university, the funding for the EHC Plan is no longer available. It explained funding comes from the Disabled Student Allowance (DSA).
19. At the end of July 2024, the Council ceased Mr Y’s EHC Plan.
20. In the middle of August 2024, the Council wrote to Ms X and confirmed Mr Y’s EHC Plan had ceased. The letter set out the right of appeal to the tribunal. It explained if Mr X appealed, it would maintain the EHC Plan until the tribunal decided the appeal.
21. Mr Y appealed to the tribunal about the Council’s decision to cease to maintain the EHC Plan. His reason for appeal was the EHC Plan should be maintained until he starts university.
22. Mr Y started university in September 2024.
23. At the end of September 2024, Mr Y applied to withdraw the appeal. His reason for withdrawing the appeal was he had started university.
24. The tribunal withdrew the appeal in October 2024.

Complaint to the Council and asking the tribunal to reopen the case

25. Mr Y emailed the tribunal in late September 2025 with a formal request to reopen his appeal case. Mr Y copied the Council into the email. He said he withdrew his original appeal in 2024 based on misleading information from the Council.
26. The Council responded to Mr Y’s email which also copied in the tribunal. It said the tribunal does not have the power to reinstate an appeal once an appeal matter has concluded, especially where almost a year has passed. It said ‘In the event the tribunal decides to reinstate this appeal, the Local Authority will appeal this decision.’
27. Ms X emailed the tribunal with an urgent submission to reinstate Mr C’s appeal against the Council’s decision to cease Mr Y’s EHC Plan. She said the Council made a material error in law which led to it wrongly ceasing Mr Y’s EHC Plan. She said the university course was a foundation level and did not count as higher education. The Council should have continued to support Mr Y with an EHC Plan. Ms X copied the Council into this email which she requested to be considered as a formal complaint. She referred to the Council’s intention to appeal any decision to reinstate the case which she said was a breach of its corporate parenting responsibility.
28. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in early October 2025. It explained the tribunal was considering if the appeal could be reinstated, therefore the issues she raised are within a statutory process which the Council’s complaint process cannot interfere with. This included the decision to cease Mr Y’s EHC Plan, the advice given and concerns raised about corporate parenting. The Council said the ‘tribunal is the appropriate statutory forum for resolving the issues raised.’
29. In the middle of October 2025, the tribunal refused to reopen the case.
30. The following week, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. She said the Council gave the family wrong advice and failed to maintain Mr Y’s EHC Plan. She also complained about the Council’s corporate parenting.
31. In early November 2025, Mr Y applied to the tribunal for permission to appeal.
32. In early January 2026, the tribunal refused permission to appeal. It was satisfied there was no error in law or a change in circumstances. It said it did ‘not accept the allegation that the Local Authority misled [Mr Y] about ceasing the EHC Plan. He told the Local Authority that he was starting university and accepted that an EHC Plan was no longer necessary as it has no effect in the higher education sector’.
33. In early February 2026, Ms X appealed to the Upper tribunal for permission to appeal the decision of the first-tier tribunal (the October 2025 decision). The Judge ordered the application for permission to appeal to be decided at a hearing in the middle of June 2026.

Analysis

34. There are three parts to this complaint. The first is Ms X’s complaint the Council ceased Mr Y’s EHC Plan. The second is the advice given by the Council to the family about Mr Y’s course qualifying as higher education. The third is the Council’s corporate parenting failure.

Complaint one: the Council’s decision to cease the EHC Plan.

35. The Council must review an EHC Plan every year to ensure it is up to date and decide whether to amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. The Council held an annual review meeting in March 2024 and decided to cease the EHC Plan because Mr Y was starting university in September 2024. Mr Y and Ms X appealed this decision to the tribunal. This was the correct way to challenge the decision. As there is a right of appeal to the tribunal which the family correctly used, I cannot investigate this part of the complaint, as set out in paragraph 4.

Complaint two: the Council’s advice about the categorisation of the university course.

36. Ms X and Mr Y later complained the Council’s advice about an EHC Plan at University was misleading. I cannot investigate this part of the complaint as it has already been considered by the tribunal in January 2026 when it refused permission to appeal. The judge specifically commented that they did not accept the Council misled the family about ceasing the EHC Plan. As the tribunal has already considered this, I cannot investigate it.

Complaint three: the Council’s corporate parenting failure

37. Ms X complained the Council failed in its duty as a corporate parent because it threatened to appeal the tribunal’s decision if it decided to reopen the case. The Council said this in response to Ms X’s appeal to the tribunal to reopen the case. It is therefore linked with the appeal to the tribunal and is not a matter I can investigate.
38. The action Ms X referred to as a failing of the Council’s corporate parenting was a comment the Council made. It has not actually taken this action. This is because the tribunal has not decided to reopen the case, so the Council has not had cause to make the appeal. Even if this matter were not linked to the matter at appeal, there is no worthwhile outcome achievable in investigating this element of the complaint further as ultimately Ms X and Mr Y want the Council to reinstate the Mr Y’s EHC Plan, which we cannot achieve.

Back to top

Decision

39. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because Ms X and Mr Y used their right of appeal to the tribunal and all parts of the complaint are linked to this. As the matter has been referred to the tribunal, the Ombudsman cannot investigate.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman