Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to issue an Education Health and Care plan, or the content of an Education Health and Care Plan. Mr X had a right of appeal to a Tribunal, and it would have been reasonable to expect him to have used it.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Education Health and Care (EHC) process. Mr X complained the Council:
1. initially refused to issue an EHC Plan;
2. ignored the advice of professionals when drafting the EHC Plan; and
3. did not quality assure the EHC Plan before issuing it.
2. Mr X also complained the Council communicated poorly with him throughout, including during its consideration of his complaint.
3. Mr X said the matters caused distress, and concern about the EHC Plan not providing the correct support for his child (Y).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. 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

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. Mr X asked the Council to carry out an EHC Needs Assessment for his child (Y) in March 2025.
10. After the assessment, the Council initially refused to issue an EHC Plan. Mr X asked for mediation with the Council following this decision. The Council overturned the decision during mediation and agreed to issue an EHC Plan.
11. Mr X said the mediation meeting only took a few minutes before the decision was overturned and therefore believes there were flaws in the Council’s original decision-making.
12. The Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan in October 2025. Mr X complained the Council had not quality assured it and not considered professional advice or his proposed amendments when finalising it. Mr X was concerned the EHC Plan would not meet Y’s needs because of this.
13. The Council made amended the EHC Plan and reissued it in November 2025.
14. It would have been reasonable for Mr X to appeal to the Tribunal about the Council’s initial decision not to issue an EHC Plan and any concerns he had about the content of the EHC Plan. The Council told Mr X about his right of appeal in October and November 2025.
15. The Tribunal has powers to tell the Council it should issue an EHC Plan, or to amend an EHC Plan. The Ombudsman does not have this power.
16. As we will not investigate the substantive matters of the complaint, we will not investigate the Council’s handling of the complaint, or how it communicated with Mr X because it is not proportionate to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because he had a right of appeal to the Tribunal, and it would have been reasonable to expect him to have used it.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman