Summary: We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about matters which are not separable from a Tribunal appeal. And we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has already offered as a remedy to his complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council :
• failed to refund Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) costs,
• failed to pay for an Educational Psychologist (EP) report,
• delayed in amending an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and
• delayed in replying to their complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. In R (on application of Milburn) v Local Govt and Social Care Ombudsman & Anr [2023] EWCA Civ 207 the Court said s26(6)(a) of the Local Government Act prevents us from investigating a matter which forms the “main subject or substance” of an appeal to the Tribunal and also “those ancillary matters that may fall to be decided by the Tribunal… such as procedural failings or conduct which is said to be in breach of the [Tribunal] Rules, practice directions or directions or that is said to be unreasonable…”.
4. 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; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. 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

6. I considered information provided by Mr X and the Council’s replies to him.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X’s child, Y has had an EHC Plan since October 2021. Mr X complained to the Council about various matters in January 2024. The Council sent its final stage two reply in June 2026.
9. Mr X says they had to pay for private SALT from February 2023 to April 2024 as the Council had not arranged this provision even though it was specified in Ys EHC Plan. They say this cost them £1948.60. The Council in its June 2026 reply offered £2250 for missed SALT. This covers Mr X’s costs incurred, and we are unlikely to achieve more.
10. Mr X says the Council delayed in amending Y’s EHC Plan to meet their needs. Mr X has appealed to the Tribunal twice since 2021. The second appeal covered January 2025 to February 2026.
11. An EHC Plan sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 
12. As Mr X appealed to the Tribunal we cannot investigate why the Council named a school setting or the provision set out in an EHC Plan. Or any delays during the Tribunal process.
13. Mr X says he had to get his own EP report. Some parents will incur significant legal and expert fees during the appeal. We cannot investigate this as the Tribunal has powers to consider and/or award costs as part of the appeal. (The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Health, Education and Social Care Chamber) Rules 2008/2699, Rule 10) 
14. The Council has accepted it has significantly delayed in replying to Mr X’s complaint. It has offered £250. We are unlikely to achieve more.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we cannot investigate issues not separable from a Tribunal appeal. And we are unlikely to achieve more than the Council has offered as a remedy to his complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman