Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council has managed a child’s education provision. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council failed to name a specialist school in her child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan and that its communication with her about this matter was poor.

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.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (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 Tribunal in this decision statement

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Ms X moved to the Council’s area whilst an ongoing appeal against the contents of her child’s EHC Plan was being considered by the SEND Tribunal. The Council issued an amended draft EHC Plan and consulted with Ms X’s preferred school, a mainstream school.
8. The school said it could meet the needs of Ms X’s child, and the SEND Tribunal ordered for it to be named on the EHC Plan. The Council subsequently issued a final EHC Plan naming the school.
9. Ms X subsequently asked the Council to name a specialist school placement on her child’s EHC Plan. The Council said that such a request would need to be made at the next annual review.
10. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. It issued a final EHC Plan in accordance with the SEND Tribunal’s order, and has recently held an annual review of the EHC Plan, where Ms X will have had the opportunity to request a change of placement. If Ms X is dissatisfied with the outcome of the annual review, she will have a further right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal that it is reasonable for her to use.
11. Ms X complains about poor communication from the Council about these matters. However, this alone has not caused Ms X a significant enough injustice to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault causing a significant injustice

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman