Summary: We will not investigate Miss X complaint about how the Council carried out annual reviews for her child’s Education Health and Care plan. This is because there is either insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice, or we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council has delayed amending her daughter Z’s Education Health and Care (EHC) plan since May 2024. Miss X says the Council delayed consulting with schools and issuing an amended EHC plan naming a specialist school following a review in May 2024. She says the Council refused to issue a final EHC plan following a further review in 2025.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

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

3. 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)
4. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability – SEND) 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 and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. The Council carried out a review of Z’s EHC Plan in May 2024. It issued a final EHC Plan in February 2025, and Miss X appealed the contents to the SEND Tribunal.
8. The Council accepted there had been delays in consulting schools. It apologised to Miss X for the delay and made a payment to her of £700 to remedy the injustice this caused.
9. In July 2025, the Council carried out a further review of Z’s EHC Plan. Miss X complained after it refused to issue an amended final plan due to the ongoing appeal to the SEND Tribunal.
10. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council delayed issuing an amended final EHC plan following the review in 2024. The Council has apologised for the delay in consulting schools and issuing a final plan and made a payment in line with our guidance. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
11. I cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council has failed to name a suitable school for Z following its reviews in 2024 or 2025. Miss X has appealed the contents of the final EHC Plan issued in February 2025, including the school named, to the SEND Tribunal. The law therefore prevents us from investigating this matter.
12. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council refused to issue a final EHC Plan following a review in 2025. The Council said that this was because there was a live tribunal appeal and the outcome of the review would be considered during that appeal. It is unlikely that we would find fault with this approach by the Council. Any delay in making this decision has not caused a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is either insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice, or we could not add to the investigation carried out by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman