Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about Education Health and Care Plan communication and related matters. The injustice caused by the alleged fault does not justify an investigation.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council failed to communicate well, provide information and provide education provision.

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 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Mrs X which included the Council’s replies to her.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X’s child, B, has an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). In mid June 2024 the Tribunal ordered the Council to amend and issue a new EHC Plan. The Council did so within one week. Mrs X complained in early July. She said the Council had failed to tell her what happens following a Tribunal appeal, had not set up a transition meeting for B for their setting named in the EHC Plan and did not know the arrangements for September 2024.
6. The Council replied at the end of July. It said it had not been possible to arrange a transition meeting before the end of term. It said home to school transport would be set up once the transition had been arranged.
7. The school and Mrs X held a transition meeting in early September. The Council arranged home to school transport to start. Mrs X requested a stage two complaint review. She said in addition to transport she wanted assurance alternative provision would be available for 12 months. The Council confirmed in its reply the alternative provision cover set out in the EHC Plan.

Analysis

8. Mrs X says the poor communication and failure to provide information to her meant the transition meeting was not held until September. It seems B missed possibly one week of education because the transition meeting was not arranged in July. This is not significant enough injustice to warrant an investigation.
9. We cannot look at the length of time the alternative provision is available for as this has been set by the Tribunal. If Mrs X does not agree with it, it is reasonable to expect her to further appeal.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because the injustice caused by the alleged fault does not warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman