Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint that the Council failed to deliver provision in his child’s EHC plan and did not arrange suitable education for his child. This is because the issues are too closely linked to the content of the EHC plan, which Mr X has appealed to the Tribunal. We also cannot investigate issues about the internal management of a school.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to deliver the provision in Section F of his child’s (Y) Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. He says the Council did not arrange suitable alternative education for his child from October 2025, causing his family distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
4. 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)
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.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X says the Council failed to provide the provision in Y’s EHC plan. He also says the Council failed to provide Y with suitable alternative education when he was unable to attend school. He says he provided evidence from Y’s GP in support of this claim.
9. The Council issued the EHC plan in September 2024. Mr X appealed the content and setting named in the EHC plan.
10. Parents who want to challenge decisions about the content of an EHC plan have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. It is the mechanism set up by Parliament for parents to challenge such decisions. Mr X has used his right of appeal.
11. The law is clear that we cannot investigate a complaint, or anything closely linked to the complaint, if a parent has appealed to a tribunal. This includes the content of the EHC plan where this was part of the appeal. This exclusion applies from when the appeal rights arose to when the Tribunal issued its decision. We cannot consider this issue.
12. In any event, the provision Mr X says the Council failed to provide relates to staffing and when pupils are taught. These are matters of the school’s day-to-day management. We cannot investigate complaints about the actions of schools.
13. Mr X says he asked the Council to provide alternative provision for Y in October 2025. The Council’s EHC Plan Officer and the school worked with Mr X to submit a request for alternative provision.
14. The Council rejected the request. It said that the medical evidence provided did not show Y was unfit to attend school. It said the school Y attended could meet his needs. As Mr X appealed to the tribunal, it considered whether the named school was suitable to meet Y’s needs. We cannot investigate any issues which overlap with this point.
15. I cannot therefore investigate whether the Council was at fault for declining to put in place alternative provision. The school remained available to Y and the reasons he did not attend are too closely linked to Mr X’s appeal to the Tribunal against the decision to name the school.
16. It is however unlikely we would find fault by the Council in relation to its refusal to provide alternative provision for Y, even if we were able to investigate. This is because the Council has considered Mr X’s claim that Y is unable to attend but does not accept there is sufficient evidence to prove this. This is a decision the Council was entitled to reach, and I have seen no basis for us to question it.
17. Mr X also says the Council told the Tribunal that home provision was offered and it did not provide it. We cannot consider this matter as it relates to matters concerning the Tribunal and Mr X could have raised this during the appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint because the issues are too closely linked to the content of the EHC plan, which Mr X has appealed to the Tribunal. We also cannot investigate issues about the internal management of a school.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman