The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that the Council failed to meet the provision detailed in her child’s Education Health and Care Plan or about how it carried out annual reviews. Part of the complaint is made late and there is either insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with recent matters, or investigation into them would not lead to a different outcome.
The complaint
Miss X complains that the Council has failed to meet the provision detailed in her child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan and about how it carried out reviews of the EHC Plan.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a @council/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
The Council issued a final EHC Plan in 2021 and carried out a review in 2023, the outcome of which Miss X appealed to the SEND Tribunal. In July 2024, the Council conceded the appeal and an EHC Plan was issued naming Education Other Than In School (EOTIS).
Part of Miss X’s complaint is that the Council failed to ensure provision was in place from 2021 and about how the Council dealt with the annual reviews between 2021 and 2023. I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about these matters because it is made late. I see no good reason why it could not have been made sooner.
In responding to Miss X’s complaint, the Council did apologise for how it communicated with Miss X about a review whilst the SEND Tribunal was considering her appeal. It also apologised for a short delay in issuing an amended final plan following the appeal. I will not investigate these elements of Miss X’s complaints because the Council’s response was proportionate and therefore investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Miss X also complained that the current EOTIS provision in place for her child did not equate to full time education. Government guidance is clear that all children of compulsory school age are entitled to a full-time education. Full time education is not defined, but it is generally accepted to be between 22 and 25 hours a week depending on the age of the child. However, if the tuition is one to one, fewer hours may be appropriate given the increased intensity of the learning.
In responding to Miss X’s complaint, the Council considered its duties under the Education Act 1996 and reviewed the provision in place. It found that her child is in receipt of 15 hours of tuition and one hour of mentoring. The Council concluded that the provision in place meant that it had met its duties, due to the intensity of the provision met it.
I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint that her child’s provision is not currently being met. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council has fully considered relevant information when concluding that the provision in place is equivalent to a full time education.
Final decision
We will not investigate Mss X’s complaint because part of the complaint is made late and there is either insufficient evidence of fault with how the Council dealt with recent matters, or investigation into them would not lead to a different outcome.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman