Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the processing of an Education Health and Care Plan personal budget. There is not enough significant injustice to justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X says the Council has failed to properly provide a personal budget for support set out in an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). He complains about communication issues and the way the Council has replied to his complaint.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mr X which includes the Council’s replies to him.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mr X’s child, Y, has an EHC Plan which includes some specific provision, Z. The Council provides Mr X with a personal budget to pay for Z. Mr X says the process had run smoothly since 2020. Y started a new school in September 2025. The Council approved the funding for Z in the first week of October, backdated to the start of term. It did so for the Autumn term and then approved another payment in the New Year for the winter term.
7. Mr X describes the funding as a drip process which he says had caused him stress. He says the Council did not communicate as promptly or as clearly as he would have preferred.
8. Mr X believes Y has regressed because of the months delay in starting the funding. The Council says there is no evidence this is the case.
9. There is not enough injustice caused to Mr X and Y by a relatively short delay in payment to justify a remedy.
10. Mr X says the Council did not consult properly before an annual review in November 2025. He says it then delayed in issuing an amended EHC Plan following that review in February 2026. To comply with the law an amended final EHC Plan should be issued within eight weeks of its amendment notice. The amendment notice should be provided within four weeks of the annual review. Here the Council issued the EHC Plan 13 weeks after the annual review. Any delay is not significant enough for us to investigate.
11. We will not investigate the annual review consultation process. Mr X has a right of appeal to the Tribunal if he is unhappy with the outcome of the annual review process. It is reasonable to expect him to use that remedy if he feels any consultation flaws have adversely affected the annual review outcome.
12. Mr X says the Council should have replied to his complaint within the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. Complaints about failure to provide section F of an EHC Plan and annual review issues do not qualify for the Children Act statutory complaints procedure. We are therefore unlikely to find fault in the Council replying in its corporate complaints’ procedure.

Back to top

Final decision

13. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because there is not enough injustice to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman