Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council applied its Unreasonable Behaviour Policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation, and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains
• about the Council’s application of its Unreasonable Behaviour Policy. She complains she has been subjected to restrictions on how she can communicate with the Council and the Council has extended these restrictions without evidence.
• the Council did not properly consider her additional needs or put reasonable adjustments in place.
• the Council did not consider her complaint about the delay to the reassessment of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan
2. Miss X says this has prevented her child from accessing services because she cannot communicate effectively with the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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 a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

5. Miss X is not satisfied with how the Council has handled the reassessment of her child’s EHC Plan. Miss X contacted the Council on several occasions and made eight complaints between January and December 2025.
6. The Council wrote to Miss X at the beginning of December 2025 to suggest a communication method to support ongoing discussions of her child’s education. Miss X did not engage with this. The Council decided to restrict Miss X’s communications and applied its Unreasonable Behaviour Policy. Miss X appealed this decision.
7. The Council reviewed its decision but decided not to withdraw the restrictions. Six months later, in July 2026, the Council reviewed the restrictions again and decided to extend them for a further six months. Miss X appealed this decision.
8. The Council reviewed its decision again in August 2026 but decided not to withdraw the restrictions. Miss X complained the Council has extended these restrictions without evidence.
9. From the evidence I have seen, the Council applied its Unreasonable Behaviour Policy (UBP) properly. The Council recorded a further eleven complaints from Miss X between January 2026 and August 2026. She also made complaints which were very similar to previous complaints, so these were not recorded separately but were included in the original complaints as the issues were already being considered. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council in how it applied its UBP to warrant an investigation.
10. Miss X complained the Council did not properly consider her additional needs and did not put reasonable adjustments in place. From the evidence I have seen, the Council considered the reasonable adjustments requested by Miss X. It said each request would be considered individually. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
11. Miss X complained the Council would not consider her complaint about the delay to her child’s EHC Plan.
12. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in September 2025 and offered to pay Miss X £300 for the delay to the EHCP and a further £200 for the stress and inconvenience which is broadly in line with our guidance on remedies.
13. Miss X made a further complaint about the ongoing delay to the EHC plan at the beginning of December 2025. The Council responded again to Miss X’s complaint and offered to pay a further £300 for the delay to the annual review of the EHC Plan and an additional £200 for the stress caused. The final EHCP was issued on 11 December 2025. The Council responded twice to Miss X’s complaints about the delay to the EHC Plan and offered a remedy on both occasions. A further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
14. I have seen no evidence to indicate that Miss X’s child was denied services because of the application of the UBP. The Council provided several email addresses Miss X could contact in addition to a telephone number for emergencies.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about how the Council applied its Unreasonable Behaviour Policy. There is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation and a further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman