Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council delayed issuing the complainant’s son’s amended Education Health and Care plan, and that the content of the Education Health and Care plan when issued did not meet his needs. Investigation is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council has failed to address her son’s special educational needs. Specifically, she complains that his amended Education Health and Care (EHC) plan was delayed, and its content did not meet his needs.

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 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.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Miss X’s child has special educational needs and an EHC plan. Miss X complains that following the annual review, the Council delayed issuing the amended final EHC plan. She says the annual review took place in November 2024. That being the case, the amended EHC plan should have been issued by the end of February 2025. She says it was not issued until September 2025.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate this matter. The Council has accepted that the EHC plan was delayed. It has offered to make a payment of £500 in respect of the fault on its part. On the face of it, the delay amounts to approximately seven months. It is unlikely that the Ombudsman’s intervention would seek to achieve significantly more than the Council has already offered. That being the case, our intervention is not warranted.
9. Miss X further complains that the content of the amended EHC plan was inadequate. This is not a matter on which we can express a view. This is because Miss X had the right to appeal to the Tribunal. That is the appropriate way to challenge the content of the EHC plan and it would have been reasonable for Miss X to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because our intervention is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman