Summary: We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for the delay producing her daughter’s education, health and care (EHC) plan. We cannot investigate Ms M’s complaints about matters that were the subject of her appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and the Council does not appear to have had an opportunity to respond to Ms M’s complaint about the assessments she says she paid for.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains about an education, health and care (EHC) needs assessment for her daughter, G. She complains the assessment took too long. She is unhappy with the educational psychology (EP) assessment. She says she paid for a private occupational therapy (OT) and speech and language therapy (SALT) assessment. She complains G’s EHC plan is vague and she is not in the correct setting. She says this is having an impact on G’s mental health.

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’.
3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
4. We provide a free service, but we 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)

5. 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)
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.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council issued an education, health and care (EHC) plan for Ms M’s daughter on 18 December 2024. Ms M was unhappy with the plan and appealed sections B (special educational needs), F (special educational provision) and I (placement) to the SEND Tribunal.
10. Ms M complained to the Council about delays and the Educational Psychologist’s report.
11. The Council took a very long time to respond to Ms M’s complaint. It acknowledged there had been a delay of approximately six weeks producing G’s plan. The Council apologised and offered a symbolic payment to acknowledge the impact of the delay. The Council said that any disagreement about the Educational Psychologist’s report could be discussed during Ms M’s appeal.
12. The Council has provided a remedy for the delay. Further investigation by us would not lead to a different outcome. There is nothing we could add to the Council’s response.
13. We cannot consider Ms M’s complaints about the contents of G’s plan or the school she attends because Ms M has appealed these matters to the SEND Tribunal.
14. I have not seen evidence Ms M complained to the Council about the OT and SALT assessments she says she paid for. The Council must have an opportunity to consider Ms M’s complaint about these matters and reply before we can consider them.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Ms M’s complaint because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for the delay producing her daughter’s EHC plan. We cannot investigate complaints about matters that were the subject of Ms M’s appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and the Council does not appear to have had an opportunity to respond to Ms M’s complaint about the assessments she says she paid for.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman