Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about a delay in complying with a Tribunal decision as it is unlikely our investigation would achieve more than the apology already given. It is reasonable to expect Mr X to have appealed to the Tribunal if he does not agree with the Council’s decision not to issue an EHC Plan.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council delayed in complying with a Tribunal order and has not taken into account an Education Psychologist’s views in a Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) decision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council refused a request to assess D for an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mr X appealed this decision to the Tribunal. In April 2025 the Tribunal ordered the Council to assess D. Regulations set out the Council had ten weeks to comply. It assessed D and decided not to issue an EHC Plan. It notified Mr X 12 weeks after the Tribunal decision.
7. Mr X complained about the delay and that he believed the Council had failed to take into account his private educational psychologist’s views.
8. The Council apologised for the two week delay in completing the Tribunal’s order. We are unlikely to achieve a different remedy for a two week delay.
9. The injustice which flows from Mr X’s allegation the Council did not properly consider his education psychologist’s report is the Council’s decision not to issue an EHC Plan. Mr X had a right to appeal that decision and it is reasonable to expect him to have used that right if he believed the Council’s decision was wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council apology offered for the brief delay. And it is reasonable to expect Mr X to appeal to the Tribunal the Council’s decision not to issue an EHC Plan.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman