The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council's Education, Health and Care needs assessment process and her disagreement with the final plan. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. She has appealed to a tribunal about the content of the plan and so we cannot investigate this.
The complaint
Ms X complains about delays and poor communication during the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process for her child, Y. She also disagrees with the school placement named for Y in the final EHC Plan. She says the matter has caused her significant distress, and her child has missed out on suitable education and support. She wants the Council to name her preferred placement and improve its service.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended) We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (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
If we investigated this complaint, it is likely we would find the Council at fault. This is because the Council upheld Ms X’s complaint about delay in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process. It accepted there was an eight month delay finalising her child’s EHC Plan. It also upheld her complaint about poor communication. It apologised to her for these faults and said it would review its processes and procedures to improve its service. However, an apology is insufficient to remedy the injustice caused.
We therefore asked the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by its actions by paying Ms X £800 to recognise the impact of the delay on her appeal rights and the distress and uncertainty caused.
We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the school placement named in the final plan. This is because she has used her right of appeal about this to the SEND Tribunal.
Agreed action
The Council agreed to resolve the complaint early and within one month of the final decision, will pay Ms X £800 to remedy the injustice caused.
Final decision
We have upheld the complaint about delay in the EHC needs assessment process because the Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused.
We cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the school named in the final plan as she has appealed to a tribunal about this.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman