Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the handling of a school placement and issuing of an Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because Ms Y used her right to appeal to the First-Tier Tribunal. Ms Y has not suffered significant injustice, and we are unlikely to find fault in relation to the remaining issues complained about.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains about the Council’s handling of a school placement for her child (Z). She says the Council named an unsuitable mainstream school placement in Z’s EHCP.
2. Ms Y complains that the Council was late in issuing an amended Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for Z. She says the Council breached statutory timeframes.
3. Ms Y complains that the Council’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) team provided inadequate support.
4. Ms Y says the Council’s actions caused significant emotional distress, anxiety and exhaustion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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).
7. 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.
8. 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:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by Ms Y and the Council.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. Ms Y complained about the school placement named in Z’s EHCP. Ms Y appealed this decision, and a Tribunal was held.
12. We cannot investigate the Council’s actions or decisions if doing so would overlap with the role of a tribunal. Ms Y and the Council were able to present evidence at tribunal, including the process which led to the Council’s decision to offer Z a place in a mainstream school. The issue that Ms Y complains about has been referred to and resolved at Tribunal using its own powers.
13. We therefore cannot investigate this part of Ms Y’s complaint because it is outside of our jurisdiction to do so.
14. Ms Y complains that the Council was late in issuing Z’s amended EHCP after the Tribunal was concluded.
15. The law says Councils must issue an amended EHCP within two weeks, when this involves changing the name of the school placement. (Regulation 44 of The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014.)
16. The Council accepts that it was one day late in issuing Z’s amended EHCP. It apologised to Ms Y for this.
17. Whilst I accept the Council is at fault for not issuing the EHCP within the statutory deadline, I do not consider the one-day delay caused significant injustice to warrant an investigation.
18. Ms Y complains that the Council’s SEN team provided inadequate support.
19. The Council accepts that the service provided by its SEN team was inadequate. It has apologised to Ms Y and has agreed to review the conduct and responsiveness of its SEN team. The Council says it is committed to ensuring that families are supported consistently and compassionately.
20. We will not investigate this part of Ms Y’s complaint because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s response.
21. Ms Y also complained about the Council’s complaint handling. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue.

Back to top

Final decision

22. We will not investigate Ms Y’s complaint because she has used her right to appeal to the Frist- Tier Tribunal. Ms Y has not suffered significant injustice because of the delays issuing the amended EHCP. It is unlikely an investigation could add to the Council’s response in relation to Ms Y’s concerns about the support and communication she received from the SEN officer.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman