Summary: We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s failure to arrange alternative provision and carry out an early review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This is because these matters overlap with a SEND Tribunal appeal about her child’s Plan. And, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs Y wants.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y’s child, Z, has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan).
2. Mrs Y appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the placement named in Z’s Plan (issued by the Council in July 2025). She complains Z’s attendance significantly deteriorated during the autumn term 2026. Mrs Y complains Z is currently unable to attend school and the Council failed to arrange the provision in Z’s Plan.
3. Mrs Y complains the Council refused to carry out an emergency annual review, despite a severe placement breakdown and safeguarding risks to her child. She says the Council told her an emergency annual review needed to take place to request a change of placement. Her child’s school held the emergency review meeting, but she says the Council told her this was not a statutory review.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. 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)
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 SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. 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, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.

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

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

10. Mrs Y complains the Council failed to arrange the provision in Z’s EHC Plan, including when Z became unable to attend school. The matter of whether the Council should have arranged alternative provision was linked to the suitability of Z’s school and whether it met Z’s needs, which is the subject of an appeal to the SEND Tribunal. We cannot look at any complaint that overlaps with a SEND Tribunal appeal.
11. Mrs Y complains about the Council’s school consultation process before it issued the final EHC Plan. She says this resulted in the Council naming an unsuitable school in Section I of Z’s Plan. She complains the Council failed to consult her parental preference. The alleged fault in these processes is directly linked to Mrs Y’s SEND Tribunal appeal about the suitability of the placement named in Z’s Plan. So, we cannot investigate this part of the complaint either.
12. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint about the Council’s response to her request for an early review. The Council has given clear reasons for its refusal to carry out an early review of the Plan. There is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. Also, Mrs Y says the School can no longer meet Z’s needs so the Council should carry out the early review. She wants the Council to immediately name a different placement in Section I of the Plan. We cannot achieve this outcome. Only the SEND Tribunal can decide on the suitability of the placement named in the Plan. We cannot investigate this point because to do so would overlap with the role of the SEND Tribunal and the subject of Mrs Y’s appeal.
13. We also cannot investigate any costs incurred by Mrs Y for arranging private expert assessments during the SEND Tribunal appeal. This is because the SEND Tribunal has wide powers to order reports be completed. Even if Mrs Y did not include these matters in her appeal, we cannot investigate this matter. This is because she could have referred the need for certain reports to the Tribunal to resolve using its own powers.
14. It is not a proportionate use of our resources to investigate the Council’s complaint handling and communication alone when we are not considering the substantive matters. Any separable injustice to Mrs Y is not significant enough to justify our further involvement. So, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mrs Y’s complaint because it overlaps with a SEND Tribunal appeal. And, we cannot achieve the outcome Mrs Y wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman