Summary: We upheld Mrs X’s complaint about delays in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) process for her child and the Council’s poor communication because the Council upheld the complaints, apologised, and offered a £200 symbolic payment. We cannot investigate how the Council conducted school consultations, its decision to name a specific school in an EHC Plan, or delivery of the EHC Plan because Mrs X appealed to a tribunal and the law says we cannot investigate. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about alternative education because the claimed injustice is not significant enough.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to:
1. adhere to statutory timescales in relation to an Education, Health and Care Plan for her child, Y;
2. communicate with her effectively about her child’s EHC Plan and schooling;
3. organise alternative education for Y when they could not attend their school;
4. name a suitable school in section I of her child’s EHC Plan and about the school consultation process; and
5. deliver the content of Y’s EHC Plan to them.
2. Mrs X said the matter caused her distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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. 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)
6. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
7. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
8. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

Education, Health and Care needs assessment delay

11. The Council received a request for an EHC needs assessment for Y in early April 2025. The Council decided to make an EHC Plan for Y. It should have sent the final EHC Plan to Mrs X by mid-August 2025. It did not send the final EHC Plan until early November 2025; a delay of almost 12 weeks.
12. In its complaint response the Council upheld the complaint and apologised. It explained service improvements it was making and offered Mrs X a symbolic payment of £200 to acknowledge her frustration and uncertainty.
13. We uphold this complaint because the Council upheld the complaint. However, we will not investigate this complaint because the Council’s remedy is in line with our Guidance on Remedies and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Poor communication

14. Mrs X complained the Council’s communication with her was poor. In its complaint response the Council upheld the complaint and apologised.
15. We uphold this complaint because the Council upheld the complaint. However, we will not investigate this complaint because the Council’s remedy is in line with our Guidance on Remedies and an investigation is unlikely to achieve anything further.

Alternative Education

16. Mrs X said Y was unable to attend school between September 2025 and December 2025 due to their mental health.
17. We will not investigate this complaint. The period we could investigate is between mid-September 2025 when the Council was first told Y was not attending school, and early November 2025 when the final EHC Plan was made. This is less than a term of education. Consequently, the claimed injustice for the period we could consider is not significant enough to warrant an investigation, and so we will not investigate.

Named school in section I of Y’s EHC Plan & school consultations

18. The Council named a mainstream school in section I of Y’s EHC Plan in November 2025. Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s decision and submitted an appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Mrs X also complained about how the Council consulted with schools during the EHC process.
19. We cannot investigate these complaints. This is because Mrs X used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The courts have confirmed that we cannot investigate any matter which is part of, or connected to, a tribunal appeal.
20. Mrs X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s consultations prior to the final EHC Plan being issued is connected to the issue appealed, and so we cannot investigate. Mrs X’s dissatisfaction with the named school in section I was appealed to the Tribunal, and so we cannot investigate.

Delivery of Y’s EHC Plan

21. Between November 2025 and late December 2025 Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure the content of Y’s EHC Plan because the named school in section I was unsuitable.
22. We cannot investigate this complaint. This is because the reason Y did not receive the content of their EHC Plan is too closely related to the appeal Mrs X made to the SEND Tribunal.

Back to top

Final decision

23. We upheld parts of Mrs X’s complaint because the Council upheld the complaints. We cannot investigate some of the complaint because Mrs X appealed to a tribunal. We did not investigate part of the complaint because the claimed injustice is not significant enough to warrant our involvement

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman