Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s refusal to re-assess her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care needs and that the Council delayed issuing a decision after Y’s annual review. This is because there is no evidence of fault to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s refusal to commission an updated Educational Psychologist (EP) cognitive testing and Speech and Language Therapy advice for their child Y to inform their post-16 transition planning. Mrs X said the existing EP test result was unreliable and an updated test was needed to ensure the provision in Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was suited to their needs.
2. Mrs X also complained that the Council failed to formally respond to her request for re-assessment and about delays during Y’s annual review process which impacted on her rights of appeal to the Tribunal.
3. Mrs X said as a result they were caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered information provided by Mrs X.
8. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. In its complaint response the Council explained that it had enough information to plan for Y’s post-16 transition without completing further cognitive assessment. It told Mrs X it would arrange an Educational Psychologist’s (EP) involvement to provide transition focussed advice and if it became evident that standardised cognitive assessment was needed, the Council would reconsider its decision.
10. We will not investigate this complaint. Mrs X requested specific cognitive tests and advice rather than a full EHC reassessment of needs. The Council appropriately responded to her requests, advising her why it did not consider the tests necessary. Mrs X’s request was not for a full re-assessment of Y’s needs and so there was no requirement for the Council to formally refuse and offer appeal rights. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.
11. Y’s annual review was held on 4 December 2025. In its stage two complaint response the Council acknowledged the delay in issuing a decision following the annual review meeting. It apologised to Mrs X for this delay. We will not investigate this. The apology is an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused by the delay.
12. The Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan on 4 March 2026. The Council had 12 weeks from the date of the annual review meeting to issue the final EHC Plan and it issued Y’s Plan a few days outside of the 12 weeks. Mrs X did not appeal the final Plan. We will not investigate this. Any injustice caused by the short delay issuing the final amended Plan is not significant enough to justify an investigation.
13. Mrs X said updated assessments were needed to effectively understand Y’s needs and the provision needed to meet those needs. Mrs X had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the contents of Y’s final EHC Plan issued in March 2026 and it was reasonable to expect her to appeal to the Tribunal if she was unhappy with the provision or placement outlined in Y’s Plan. Therefore we will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman