Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s actions during and after a tribunal. Some matters are out of our jurisdiction and on the matters we can consider, any injustice suffered is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s implementation of a tribunal order in relation to her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). This required a new review to be held. Miss X says she had to secure legal support as the Council would not work with her.
2. Miss X wants an apology for the way the Council has treated her and her child. She wants the Council to take accountability for its actions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if it is about a personnel issue. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5a, paragraph 4, 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. 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 any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B)).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X complained to the Council asking for a member of its staff to be investigated. We cannot investigate complaints about personnel issues. Paragraph 3 of this decision statement applies.
9. Miss X complains about the Council’s submission of evidence to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST). She also complains about the Council’s cross examination of evidence during tribunal proceedings. We cannot investigate a complaint that overlaps with the role of the tribunal. Paragraph 4 of this decision statement applies.
10. Prior to the Tribunal, an emergency review was held. Following this review, the Council issued a no amendment notice. This was issued in error. The Council apologised to Miss X for this. The information shared at the review was added to the EHCP working document for the Tribunal, meaning that the review information was considered to inform amendments. Therefore, as the review information was provided to the Tribunal, any injustice caused by the issuing of the no amendment notice is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.
11. As part of its complaint response, the Council proposed to call another review in December 2025. This was due to it being provided new reports and differing professional opinions. The Council deemed a review to be the best way to consider these matters. Miss X was dissatisfied about this. The Council, as the holder of the EHCP, is entitled to call a review of an EHCP at any time if it has a valid reason to do so.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. Some matters are out of our jurisdiction and of the matters we can consider, any injustice suffered is not significant enough to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman