Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about delays in implementing an Education Health and Care Plan Tribunal decision. We are unlikely to add significantly to the Council’s reply to his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council delayed in complying with a Tribunal order.

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:
• 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

3. I considered information provided by the Mr X which included the Council’s replied to him.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s child, Y has an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). Mr X appealed the EHC Plan to the Tribunal. It issued an order in April 2025 defining what the EHC Plan should say.
6. The Council issued its amended EHC Plan in line with the Tribunal’s order within nine weeks. The EHC Plan Code says the amended EHC Plan should be issued within five weeks of a Tribunal order.
7. Mr X says the Council delayed in starting Occupational Therapy (OT) sessions and Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) Sessions. He complained to the Council.
8. In its final reply in December 2025, the Council confirmed that OT had started in September. It upheld Mr X’s complaint about SALT delays. It accepted Y had not had SALT since June 2025. It said it had found a provider and set out the catch up provision it intended to deliver. It apologised and offered £200 for the inconvenience and distress caused by the delays.

Analysis

9. The delay in issuing the amended EHC Plan following the Tribunal is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
10. We are unlikely to be able to add to the Council’s reply to Mr X’s complaint. Catch up provision will compensate for the missed provision and £200 is in line with our remedies’ guidance for this length of delay.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate M X’s complaint because we are unlikely to add to the Council’s reply to his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman