Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in issuing an Education Health and Care plan and failure to communicate appropriately. This is because the complaint has already been substantially upheld and our intervention would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council was at fault in delaying issuing an amended Education Health and Care plan for her son and in failing to communicate with her appropriately.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)
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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mrs X’s son has an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. Mrs X complains that the process of issuing and amending the EHC plan has been characterised by delay and a failure to communicate appropriately. Specifically, she complains that no record was made of the outcome of a co-production meeting in June 2025.
8. The evidence Mrs X has provided shows that the EHC plan was issued in final form in February 2025. Mrs X says the Council missed the statutory deadline for doing so. She contends that the final EHC plan was flawed and required further amendment. A further final EHC plan was issued in January 2026.
9. The Council has upheld Mrs X’s complaint about the delay in amending the EHC plan and its communication during the period. It has apologised and offered her symbolic payments totalling £500.
10. We will not investigate matters relating to the final EHC plan issued in February 2025. The evidence Mrs X has provided shows that, while it took the Council longer than it should have to issue the EHC plan in final form, the delay was not so significant as to warrant the Ombudsman’s intervention. We cannot express a view on whether the content of the EHC plan was flawed, as this was a matter which could reasonably have been addressed by way of appeal to the Tribunal.
11. We will not investigate the process by which the EHC plan was amended. We do not normally investigate complaints which have already been upheld, as is the case here. It is not a good use of our resources to do so. The symbolic payment the Council has offered is reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances of the case, and our intervention is unlikely to lead to a significantly different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X ’s complaint because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman