The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about delay in issuing a child’s Education Health and Care Plan. This is because the complaint does not meet the tests in our Assessment Code on how we decide which complaints to investigate. The injustice from the delay is not significant enough to warrant an investigation.
The complaint
The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complained the Council took too long to issue their son’s first Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP). This meant he missed Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) which Ms X had to fund herself.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 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))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Ms X’s son (Y) has special educational needs and started school in September 2022. The Council had agreed to issue Y with an EHCP. The Council should have issued it by 06 July 2022. The Council eventually issued the EHCP on 30 September 2022.
I understand Ms X’s frustrations, but we will not start an investigation into her complaint.
The Council was around 12 weeks late in issuing the EHCP. It has accepted this in its responses to Ms X’s complaint. But for most of these twelve weeks, Y was not in school. This is because he only started school in September.
The EHCP states Y should receive three termly visits from a Speech and Language Therapist. The Council says Y has already received one visit and will receive two more this term. The delay did not therefore cause significant injustice to Y which would warrant an investigation.
Also, I understand Ms X was keen SALT was in place, and that is why she made her own arrangements.
But we would not expect the Council to have the SALT sessions in place by the start of term. We would instead expect them to be delivered as set out in the EHCP.
The Council arranged the first session early in the Autumn term as we would expect. Two other sessions will follow, and this delivers what is in the EHCP. So, even if we investigated, we would not recommend the Council refund any money Ms X spent on SALT.
Final decision
We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of significant personal injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman