Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not complete her child’s Education Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales. She said this impacted her child’s education and caused avoidable distress to her child and wider family. We have ended our investigation because the Council has offered an appropriate remedy and there is nothing further an investigation could add.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her child’s education. Specifically, she complains the Council:

1. Consulted with unsuitable school placements;
2. Did not complete her child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan within statutory timeframes;
3. Communicated poorly; and
4. Handled her complaint poorly.

2. Miss X says this impacted her child’s education and emotional wellbeing. She says it also caused her avoidable distress and impacted her mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
10. 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

What I found

11. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about a child’s needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the tribunal or the council can do this. 
12. I have not investigated part a of Miss X’s complaint. This is because the Council’s consultation with other education establishments is not separable from the name of the educational placement, which Miss X has appealed at Tribunal.
13. The Council accepts it did not issue Y’s EHC Plan within statutory timescales. It says this was due to a delay receiving Educational Psychologist advice caused by the national shortage of Educational Psychologists. It apologised to Miss X and offered a financial remedy of £1100 to remedy its eleven-month delay. This equates to £100 per month of delay which is in line with our tariff for injustice caused by delay due to the national shortage of Educational Psychologists. I am satisfied this is an appropriate and proportionate remedy.
14. The Council accepts its communication with Miss X was not in line with its expected standard, and it did not contact her by the agreed date. It offered Miss X a financial remedy of £400 to remedy the avoidable distress caused to her by its poor communication. This is in line with our guidance on remedies and I am satisfied this amount is appropriate and proportionate to the injustice caused.
15. The Council has recently completed an action plan to address its delays in the EHC Plan process. The Ombudsman continues to monitor the Council’s action plan. For this reason, I consider a service improvement recommendation is not appropriate in this case.
16. Miss X is seeking an apology, an uplifted financial remedy and service improvement action. I am satisfied the Council has made a sufficient apology, offered an appropriate financial remedy and is continuing to take service improvement action. For these reasons, I am satisfied the Council has taken appropriate action to address the issues raised in this complaint and further action by the Ombudsman is not proportionate.
17. It is not a proportionate use of public recourses to investigate the Council’s complaints handling if we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Decision

18. I have ended my investigation and uphold Miss X’s complaint. The Council has taken appropriate action and no further action by the Ombudsman is needed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman