Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of a child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because we could not add anything significant to the investigation carried out by the Council.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains about the Council’s handling of his child’s Education Health and Care plan. He says delays meant his child was in an unsuitable school for longer than she should have been, and his ability to appeal was delayed.
2. Mr X also complains about how the Council handled his complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X complains about the Council’s delay in issuing his child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) plan following an annual review. He says the delay has meant his child has been attending a school that could not meet her needs and he has been unable to appeal the content of the EHC plan.
7. The annual review took place in May 2025. The Council decided to amend the EHC plan. However, it did not issue a final plan until November 2025. The Council offered Mr X a £400 remedy in recognition of the four-month delay and not meeting the statutory time scale of 12 weeks.
8. Mr X does not regard the amount the Council has offered as appropriate. He is seeking full reimbursement of costs he says he incurred in making private provision, as well as additional compensation. However, the symbolic payment is broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would recommend, and it is unlikely we would seek to achieve a different outcome if we investigated.
9. Mr X complains about how his complaint was handled. It is not a good use of the Ombudsman’s resources to investigate how a complaint was handled if the substantive issue does not fall to be investigated. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we could not add to the previous investigation by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman