Summary: We have upheld this complaint about the Council’s failure to issue an Education Health and Care plan for the complainant’s child within the statutory timescale. The Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy and this removes the need for us to investigate.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council failed to issue her child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) plan within the timescale set out in the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice. She further complains that the EHC plan does not meet her child’s needs and names an unsuitable school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
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.
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X complains that the Council delayed issuing her son’s EHC plan. The evidence shows that it should have been issued by August 2025 but was not issued until October. The process was delayed by two months.
9. If we were to investigate this aspect of the complaint it is likely we would find fault causing Miss X injustice because of the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay.
10. Miss X complains that the EHC plan does not identify and address her son’s needs and proposes a school which is not suitable for him. The Ombudsman will not investigate this aspect of the complaint. This is because it concerns the content of the EHC plan. This is a matter about which Miss X had the right to appeal to the Tribunal, and it would have been reasonable for her to do so.

Back to top

Agreed action

11. We asked the Council to, within one month of the date of this decision, offer to make a symbolic payment of £200 to Miss X in recognition of the two-month delay in issuing the EHC plan.
12. To its credit the Council has agreed to take the action we asked for. This removes the need for us to investigate

Back to top

Final decision

13. We have upheld Miss X’s complaint about EHC plan delay. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy to the injustice caused to her.
14. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the content of the EHC plan because it would have been reasonable for her to use her right to appeal to the Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman