Summary: We cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about the suitability of an Education Health and Care Plan as she has appealed to a Tribunal. There is not enough evidence of significant fault or injustice to justify an investigation into any delays.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council delayed in holding an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) review and in issuing an amended EHC Plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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).
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:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (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 Miss X and the Council’s replies to her.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Z has an EHC Plan. Miss X is their mother. Miss X asked the Council in July 2025 to change the EHC Plan from naming a school to EOTAS and to hold a review to do so. The Council suggested a meeting in September.
7. Z’s EHC Plan annual review was held in November 2025. The Council decided to amend the EHC Plan and issued an amended version in February 2026. Miss X appealed the amended EHC Plan to the Tribunal.
8. Miss X says the Council delayed in reviewing and amending the EHC Plan. She says this delayed her appeal rights. She says the amended EHC Plan does not meet Z’s needs.

Analysis

9. We cannot investigate whether the EHC Plan meets Z’s needs as Miss X has appealed to the Tribunal.
10. Following an annual review the Council has 12 weeks to issue an amended EHC Plan. Here it was at most three weeks over this. This is not significant enough delay to justify our investigation.
11. The Council had no duty to hold a review outside of the annual review cycle. It is unlikely we would find fault in it not doing so here. Z was in receipt of education and support.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because we cannot investigate issues appealed to a Tribunal. We are unlikely to find fault or significant enough injustice to justify an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman