Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s Education Health and Care Plan review. This is because the main issue concerns the content of the Plan and Mrs X had a right of appeal against this which it would have been reasonable for her to use.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains the Council took too long to notify her of its intention to amend her daughter’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complains about the way the Council handled the EHC Plan review and disputes its view that the school it named could meet her needs. Mrs X says the school neglected her daughter and could not meet her needs without providing one-to-one support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal 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 appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. If Mrs X felt the Council had not properly reached its decision on her daughter’s EHC Plan, including naming her school as suitable to meet her needs, it would have been reasonable for her to appeal against the Plan. We cannot separately consider whether the Council properly considered Mrs X’s concerns about the school as these fed into its decision about the school’s suitability.
7. The Council has now agreed that Mrs X may educate her daughter at home but it maintains the view that she could be educated effectively at school. This means Mrs X is responsible for any costs for her daughter’s elective home education. We cannot say the Council must agree to fund these costs as this issue relates to decisions contained within the EHC Plan and if Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s view it would have been reasonable for her to appeal.
8. Mrs X’s initial complaint to us concerned delay by the Council in making its decision about whether to amend her daughter’s EHC Plan. This issue is separate from the content of the Plan and carries no right of appeal. However any delay in this case was minimal and did not itself cause significant injustice warranting a remedy. The main issue concerns the Council’s decisions on the appropriate setting for Mrs X’s daughter and we will not investigate this for the reasons set out above.
9. Mrs X is also unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her complaint. But it is not a good use of public resources to look at the Council’s complaints handling if we are not going to look at the substantive issue complained about. We will not therefore investigate this issue separately.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the main issue concerns a dispute over the Council’s decisions as part of the EHC Plan review process and if Mrs X disagreed with these decisions it would have been reasonable for her to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman