The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about Education Health and Care Plan delays as its not significant enough. And we cannot investigate the consultation process because she has appealed to the Tribunal.
The complaint
Miss X complains about the Council’s Education Health and Care Plans ( EHC Plan) actions.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by Miss X and the Council.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Miss X’s child, Y, has an EHC Plan. Miss X says the Council was a month late in issuing an amended EHC Plan. This is not significant enough fault to justify our investigation.
Miss X says the Council failed to consult properly before issuing the EHC Plan. Miss X has appealed the EHC Plan content to the Tribunal. We cannot investigate the consultation which led to the EHC Plan as the effect of that consultation is the EHC Plan content which she is appealing.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because the delay she complains of is not significant enough and we cannot investigate the EHC Plan consultation because she is appealing the effect of that consultation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman