Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council’s late issue of a new Education Health and Care Plan for her son’s transition to secondary school. Although it was late, the Council named the provision she wanted. The injustice caused by the delay is not sufficient to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council was late issuing her son’s Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) causing stress, anxiety and upset.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Ombudsman investigates 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 may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

3. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Miss X’s son will transfer to secondary school in September 2023. The Council should therefore have issued his final EHC Plan by 15 February 2023. The Council issued an EHC Plan by this date, but it did not name a school – only a type of education - mainstream. This was because Miss X’s preferred school had questioned if it could meet Miss X’s son’s needs.
7. The Council did not think the preferred placement would be incompatible with the efficient education of others. It told Miss X at the beginning of April it would therefore be directing the school to admit her son.
8. The Council issued a final EHC Plan naming Miss X’s preferred school on 03 May. This was eleven weeks after the deadline of 15 February.
9. The Council was therefore clearly at fault because it was late issuing the final EHC Plan. But it did name the school Miss X wanted. There was no need to appeal to the SEND Tribunal and the place is available for September.
10. The delay in issuing the EHC Plan was also linked to Miss X’s preferred school questioning if they could meet her son’s needs. That is something outside of the Council’s control.
11. Also, Miss X was aware at the beginning of April the Council would be directing her preferred school to admit. There was clearly some uncertainty for Miss X and her son. But for us to investigate based on this point alone, the uncertainty would need to be significant. On balance, the injustice to Miss X flowing from fault by the Council is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the injustice is not significant enough to warrant investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman