Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision on what to include in an Education, Health, and Care Plan. Mrs X has already appealed this decision to a Tribunal, and the law does not allow us to investigate.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council intentionally inserted a therapeutic provision she believed her son (Y) needed to access education in the wrong section of his Education, Health, and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X said the Council failed to work effectively with the Integrated Care Board (ICB) on this matter, in the way it commissioning the provision.
2. Mrs X said because of this, Y has missed out on essential provision, to enable him to properly access education.

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 courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
5. 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.
6. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. In August 2025, the Council issued a final EHC Plan for Y. Mrs X raised concerns with the Council, that a weekly therapeutic provision, she believed ought to have been included in section F (special education provision), had been included in section G (health care provision). Mrs X believed this to be the case, because she said it was provision that was necessary for Y to access his education.
10. The Council considered Mrs X’s complaint and provided explanations for why it had included this provision in section G and said it was acting on relevant advice. The Council also made enquiries with the body it said was responsible for commissioning this provision, namely the ICB.
11. Mrs X complained to us unhappy with the Council’s approach to this and because she was concerned Y did not have any provision available to him from August 2025. Mrs X also said this meant the Council was at fault in how it worked with the ICB to ensure provision was in place.
12. We cannot investigate any part of Mrs X’s complaint. The law I have referred to at paragraphs four and six apply in this case. Mrs X has already appealed to the Tribunal about Y’s EHC Plan and the matters she complains about, are not separable from the appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint because she as already used an alternative legal remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman