Source · LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman)

Buckinghamshire Council

LGO (Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman) Other Reference 22-008-799 Sector Education Category Special Educational Needs Decided 23 October 2022

View Buckinghamshire Council scorecard

Full decision

The Ombudsman's final decision

Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the content of her son’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because it is reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal.

The complaint

The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complained about the content of her child’s Education Health and Care Plan.

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. 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) 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.

How I considered this complaint

I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.

I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

My assessment

Mrs X’s complaint is about the Occupational Therapy provision in her son’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is something Mrs X can appeal to the SEND Tribunal. It is reasonable for her to use this right. We have no powers to say what provision an Education Health and Care Plan should contain.

Final decision

We will not investigate this complaint because it is reasonable for Mrs X to use the appeal rights available to her.

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

View original on LGO (Local Governme… website

Other decisions involving Buckinghamshire Council

Reference Date Summary Outcome
25-016-958 Other
25-017-608 Other
25-017-052 Other
25-018-376 Other
24-020-799 Upheld
View all decisions for this organisation