Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about a delay in issuing an amended Education Health and Care Plan. It is reasonable to expect Mrs X to have appealed if she felt it did not meet her child’s needs. And we are unlikely to achieve more than the apology and explanation given.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council has delayed in amending an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and communicated poorly.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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:
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (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 Mrs X which included the Council’s replies.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X’s child, Y, has an EHC Plan. The School Y attends held an annual review in December 2024 and sent its report to the Council in January 2025. In October 2025 the Council issued an amended EHC Plan.
7. Mrs X complained about the delay and poor communication. The Council replied in October and December. It apologised for “any inconvenience and stress these delays may have caused “. It said it “is committed to improving its processes and ensuring families receive timely and accurate information”. It also said it had “made changes to our service from January to improve the service and meet deadlines faster.”
8. Mrs X had requested a personal budget. The Council considered this and turned the request down within a week. It said the provision did not need a personal budget as it was being provided.
9. Mrs X says Y has been in school throughout. She is concerned Y has had provision they need delayed. She says the delay and poor communication has caused significant stress, frustration, and uncertainty for her family.
10. The Council should have issued the amended EHC Plan within eight weeks of the annual review. Its accepted it has missed this timescale.
11. We cannot guess what the provision would have been had the plan been issued within timescales. If Mrs X believes the EHC Plan does not meet Y’s needs, which would include any catch up for any missed provision, then she had the right to appeal to the Tribunal. It is reasonable to expect her to use that right.
12. Our investigation is unlikely to improve on the Council’s apology and explanation already given.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is reasonable to expect her to have appealed if she felt the EHC Plan did not meet Y’s needs. And we are unlikely to achieve more than the apology and explanation already given.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman