Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council looked for a new educational placement for his adult daughter, Ms Y. Mr X also complained about how the Council reviewed Ms Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, about how it amended the EHC Plan and about its failure to secure the provision in Ms Y’s EHC Plan. The Council was at fault. Mr X also complained about the supported living placement the Council identified for Ms Y. The Council was not at fault in how it decided the placement could meet Ms Y’s needs but was at fault for moving Ms Y to the placement without a sufficiently lengthy transition or an up-to-date care and support plan. The faults caused Mr X and Ms Y significant injustice. To remedy that injustice, the Council should apologise to Mr X, pay him a total of £9500, issue Ms Y’s amended EHC Plan and make improvements to its practice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained on behalf of his adult daughter, Ms Y. Mr X complained about:
1. how the Council looked for a new educational placement for Ms Y;
2. delays in how the Council carried out annual reviews of Ms Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan;
3. the Council’s failure to issue a new EHC Plan after he appealed to the SEND Tribunal;
4. the Council’s failure to secure the provision in Miss Y’s EHC Plan; and
5. the supported living placement the Council identified for Ms Y, which he said could not meet her needs.
2. Mr X said this impacted on Ms Y’s development and wellbeing and caused him and his wife significant distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
8. The SEND Tribunal is a tribunal that considers special educational needs and disability discrimination. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability Chamber of the First Tier Tribunal (‘SEND’))
9. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. Mr X complained about matters going back to 2018 but did not complain to the Ombudsman until July 2023. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than twelve months to complain to us about something a council has done. I have seen no good reason to investigate back to 2018. I have investigated from March 2022, when the Council conceded Mr X’s appeal to the SEND Tribunal to May 2023, when the Council issued its final response to Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I have considered:
1. all the information Mr X provided and discussed the complaint with him;
2. the Council’s comments about the complaint and the supporting documents it provided; and
3. the Council’s policies, relevant law and guidance and the Ombudsman's guidance on remedies.
12. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Education, Health and Care plans

13. A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections.
1. Section B: The child or young person’s special educational needs. 
2. Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person.  
3. Section I: The name and/or type of school.
14. The council has a duty to secure the specified special educational provision in an EHC Plan (section F) for the child or young person (Section 42 Children and Families Act).

Annual reviews

15. The procedure for reviewing and amending EHC Plans is set out in legislation and government guidance. Councils must review EHC Plans once a year. The first annual review must take place within twelve months of the date of the first EHC Plan. Subsequent annual reviews must take place within twelve months of the previous annual review.
16. Annual reviews are made up of two parts. The first stage is the review meeting, which is usually organised by the child or young person’s school or college on behalf of the council. Following the meeting, the school or college sends the review paperwork to the council. The second stage of the annual review is the council’s decision notice. Within four weeks of the meeting, the council must tell the child or young person’s parent (or the young person themselves) whether it has decided to maintain, amend or discontinue the EHC Plan. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176)
17. Where a council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) plan and an accompanying notice (an amendment notice, also known as a draft plan) providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). It must do so ‘without delay’.
18. Following comments from the child’s parent or the young person, if the council decides to continue to make amendments, it must issue the amended EHC Plan as soon as practicable and within eight weeks of the date it sent the existing EHC Plan and amendment notice to the parents. (Section 22(3) SEND Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.196)
19. Caselaw has established that when councils are amending an EHC Plan, they should take no longer than 12 weeks from the date of the annual review meeting to the date it issues the final amended plan.
20. Parents have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal if they disagree with the council’s decision to cease their child or young person’s EHC Plan. Parents can also appeal the special educational provision or the school named in the EHC Plan. Parents can only appeal the content of an EHC Plan, including the school named, once the council issues a final plan.

Adult social care

21. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support.
22. Where a council is going to meet an adult’s needs, it must produce a care and support plan. The plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. 
23. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every twelve months.

Complaints

24. The Council operates a two stage complaints procedure. Its policy says it will respond to stage one complaints in ten working days and at stage two in 20 working days.

What happened: Background

25. Ms Y is a young autistic woman with significant and complex needs which impact significantly on her day-to-day life. In 2018, the Council issued an EHC Plan which noted Ms Y was non-verbal and showed extremely challenging behaviour. The plan said Ms Y had “much greater difficulty than most children of similar age” in terms of her:
1. thinking and learning;
2. communication and personal skills;
3. social, emotional and mental health; and
4. sensory and physical needs.
26. The 2018 EHC Plan included extensive special educational provision, including:
1. a highly bespoke waking day curriculum to be delivered in a 52-week residential placement;
2. 1:1 support throughout the day and 2:1 support off-site; and
3. direct and indirect Occupational Therapy (OT) and Speech and Language Therapy (SALT), including a minimum of one session of OT and two sessions of SALT per week.
27. In 2018 Ms Y was 16 and attended a specialist school (School A) which teaches young people up to the age of 19. The school is run by a trust which also manages other schools and colleges. In its records, the Council frequently used School A’s name to refer to the trust as a whole.
28. In early 2021, the Council asked the trust if it would offer Ms Y a space at one of its schools (College A). The trust sent a letter in May 2021 confirming College A could offer a place. The Council later decided it would not send Ms Y to College A.
29. In late July 2021, around the time Ms Y finished her last year at School A, the Council reviewed her EHC Plan and issued its decision to cease the plan. Mr X appealed that decision.
30. In October 2021, the Council asked School A if it could provide a bespoke package of education for Ms Y while Mr X’s appeal was ongoing. School A confirmed it could but did not respond to the Council’s request for more information about what that package would look like.
31. The Council has no record of what that package consisted of or when it stopped. A case record from April 2022 notes a typical day for Ms Y comprised staff reading her sensory stories for short periods of time or taking her for a walk around the site. The Council noted Ms Y was receiving “very little in the way of what we could traditionally call education”.

What happened: Case 23 003 607 educational placement and special educational provision

32. In late-March 2022, the Council conceded Mr X’s appeal. The SEND Tribunal formalised that decision in late March 2022.
33. In late March, the Council told Mr X it would review and amend Ms Y’s EHC Plan.
34. The Council consulted with colleges which offered residential educational placements. None offered Ms Y a place. Mr X told the Council he wanted Ms Y to attend College B, which is also run by the trust which runs School A. The Council did not consult College B.
35. In late May 2022, the Council noted it needed to source a placement for Ms Y in enough time to give her a six-month transition period.
36. In early June 2022, the Council recorded it had received confirmation School A could offer Ms Y a school place. The document the Council uploaded to its case records at that time was the letter dated May 2021, which related to College A. The Council told Mr X that Ms Y had a place.
37. School A held Ms Y’s annual review meeting in mid-July. The School noted Ms Y was not receiving the provision in her 2018 EHC Plan. It told Mr X the trust had not received a consultation from the Council about a placement for Ms Y in September 2022.
38. The Council contacted School A several times in July and August about Ms Y’s upcoming placement at College B, without response. In late August School A told the Council College B did not have a space for Ms Y in September 2022. The Council attended a meeting with School A where it agreed the school would host Ms Y for a further three months.
39. Between September 2022 and February 2023 the Council consulted with many residential educational placements in and out of area to see if they could accept Ms Y. The Council also consulted to see if any colleges could offer day placements and asked supported living providers if they could offer Ms Y accommodation if she did go to a day placement. The Council chased the schools and colleges for responses where they were delayed and emphasised the urgency of finding Ms Y a placement.
40. In late October 2022, a college (College C) said it could accept Ms Y for a day placement in the new year, subject to an assessment of Ms Y at School A. The assessment was delayed until early January 2023 because School A cancelled and did not rearrange it.
41. School A said it would continue to allow Ms Y to stay on site until late February 2023, but could not allow her to stay longer that as she would have turned 21 by then.
42. College C carried out an assessment in January 2023 and by late February, decided it could offer Ms Y a day placement. Ms Y moved into a supported living placement in February 2023.
43. Ms Y began attending College C in May 2023, once it had hired new members of staff to support her. She had significant trouble with the transition to a new school placement.
44. In August 2023, the Council consulted with around 40 educational providers to see if any could provide Ms Y a residential placement. The consultations are ongoing.
45. As of December 2023, Ms Y was still not attending college full time. The College was continuing to support Ms Y to increase her time in teaching sessions and is positive her transition is progressing well.

Findings: Case 23 003 607 educational placement and special educational provision

46. The Council personally owes Ms Y the duty to secure the special educational provision in her EHC Plan. Ms Y’s Plan explicitly states she needs a bespoke waking day curriculum at a 52-week residential placement. Although the Plan dates from 2018, it remains in force and records show Mr X and the Council agree Ms Y still needs that type of placement.
47. The Council acted without delay to consult with possible educational placements after conceding Mr X’s appeal in March 2022. However, the Council did not consult with Mr X’s preferred placement, College B, and College B did not offer Ms Y a school place, as the Council told Mr X. It appears that in June 2022, the Council mistakenly identified the letter offering Ms Y a school place at College A in September 2021 as a new offer for a place at College B in September 2022. Regardless of the cause, the Council wrongly concluded Ms Y had a school place and so did not consult with any new schools from June until late August 2022, when it became aware Ms Y did not have a place at College B. This was fault and meant the Council lost valuable time to identify a placement for Ms Y at a vital period, shortly before the start of the new school year. The fault caused Mr X undue uncertainty and frustration.
48. Records from autumn 2022 up to February 2023, when College C offered Ms Y a place, show the Council went to significant effort to find Ms Y a suitable school place. However, this was undoubtedly complicated by the fact that the school year had already started and because of the level and complexity of Ms Y’s needs. There was also some delay outside of the Council’s control as it waited for College C to carry out assessments and later to hire staff to support Ms Y.
49. While I recognise the Council was making best efforts to arrange a new placement from autumn 2022 onwards, ultimately, it took fourteen months to identify a new educational placement for Ms Y. For those fourteen months, Ms Y was not receiving the bespoke waking day curriculum delivered at a 52-week residential placement that she was entitled to. That was fault.
50. In addition, during that fourteen-month period, Ms Y effectively received none of other special educational provision in her EHC Plan. The Council asked School A to prepare and deliver a bespoke alternative education package for Ms Y in October 2021 but did not confirm what that provision was or whether it was being delivered. Records from April and July 2022 evidence the Council was aware the provision Ms Y was receiving was extremely limited. However, there is no evidence the Council contacted School A to increase the provision Ms Y was receiving, nor any evidence it considered how else it could secure the provision in Ms Y’s plan. For example, Ms Y had a significant package of OT and SALT as part of her EHC Plan and it is unclear why the Council could not have arranged for independent OT’s and SALT’s to come to School A to deliver Ms Y’s provision.
51. The limited provision Ms Y was receiving ended entirely when she moved to supported living in February 2023. The failure to secure the rest of the provision in Ms Y’s EHC Plan from March 2022 to May 2023 was also fault.
52. The Council’s failure to secure any of the provision in Ms Y’s plan from March 2022 to May 2023 meant she missed out on a significant amount of educational development and caused her distress. It also caused Mr X undue distress and frustration.

What happened: Case 23 003 607 annual reviews and amended EHC Plans

53. School A held Ms Y’s annual review meeting in July 2022 on behalf of the Council. School A sent minutes of the meeting to the Council by email a few days later. The Council told me it did not notice the email.
54. School A resent the annual review minutes to the Council in mid-September. The Council told me it decided it would not issue a decision to amend, maintain or cease Ms Y’s EHC Plan after that meeting because the next annual review meeting was due in October 2022.
55. School A held another annual review meeting in October 2022, but the Council did not notify Mr X of its decision to amend Ms Y’s EHC Plan after the meeting. It issued a draft amended plan in late May 2023.
56. Mr X told the Council he did not agree with the contents of the May 2023 draft EHC Plan in mid-June 2023. Mr X told me this was because the plan referred to provision to be delivered by School A and because it was largely out of date. The Council has not issued Ms Y’s amended EHC Plan as of December 2023.

Findings: Case 23 003 607 annual reviews and amended EHC Plans

57. Mr X complained the Council did not issue a new EHC Plan after the Tribunal upheld his appeal against the Council’s decision to cease Ms Y’s plan. The Council is not required to make a new plan after appeals about a decision to cease a plan. However, it told Mr X it would review and amend Ms Y’s plan and issue a new one after the appeal. The Council did not hold a review meeting until mid-July 2022, four months after it conceded at appeal. This delay was fault.
58. Following the meeting the Council should have sent its decision to amend Ms Y’s EHC Plan within four weeks. The Council did not send any decision, meaning it never completed Ms Y’s annual review. The Council says it did not notice when School A sent the meeting minutes a few days after the meeting. It says that by the time it received the resent minutes, there was little time before the next annual review meeting in October 2022. However, that is not a valid reason to not complete an annual review and was fault.
59. School A held an early annual review meeting in October 2022 but the Council again failed to issue its decision after the meeting. This was also fault. The Council evidently decided to amend Ms Y’s EHC plan, because it issued a draft amended plan in May 2023, five months after the review meeting. It has still not issued a final plan. The SEN Code is clear that councils must issue draft EHC Plans without delay and caselaw states councils must finalise amended plans within 12 weeks of the review meeting. The Council had taken 62 weeks by December 2023. That was a significant delay and is fault.
60. The faults in paragraphs 57 to 59 caused Mr X significant frustration as Ms Y has a plan which is now five years out of date, which names provision to be delivered in a type of educational setting she does not attend and which names a school she cannot legally attend. Without a final plan, Mr X is unable to appeal the provision in the plan or the Council’s decision to place Ms Y in College C instead of a 52-week residential placement.

What happened: Case 23 008 396 supported living placement

61. The Council carried out an assessment of Ms Y’s needs in 2020 and prepared a support plan. The plan noted Ms Y had a significant need for care, including needing help with:
1. making good food choices;
2. going to the toilet;
3. personal care like washing and dental care;
4. getting dressed and choosing appropriate clothing;
5. keeping her house clean and tidy. The plan said Ms Y needed a space inside and outside her home.
6. developing and maintaining relationships. The plan noted Ms Y liked to be around people her age and needed help to develop relationships with her peers; and
7. accessing the community.
62. The plan also noted Ms Y needed to live away from a main road.
63. In early February 2023, the Council identified a supported living placement that would accept Ms Y. Mr X visited the provider along with Ms Y’s social worker. He said the home was too close to the main road and would isolate Ms Y because she was the first resident in her shared home.
64. The social worker said:
1. Ms Y would use the back entrance to get in and out of the house so would not be near the main road;
2. other supported living placements had declined to accept Ms Y because her needs were incompatible with the needs of other residents. Because she would be the first resident at the placement, any other residents would be assessed to see if they could cohabit with her;
3. Ms Y’s care and support plan included provision to help Ms Y access the community and this would be increased if and when College C offered her a place; and
4. they knew Mr X felt Ms Y needed a residential placement and supported living could be temporary if she did not settle in and if her needs were not being met.
65. Ms Y’s parents accepted the supported living placement was the best available option for Ms Y and that she should move in, despite their reservations.
66. In late February 2023, Ms Y moved into supported living. Prior to the move, she had a one-week transition period.
67. The Council reviewed Ms Y’s care and support plan in April 2023. There were no significant changes to the provision in the plan, but the Council added more detail to some categories of help. For example, the plan now said care workers should be careful to reduce Ms Y’s anxiety around zips and laces and should distract her with singing when they brushed her teeth. The plan stated Ms Y preferred a bath over a shower. It noted care workers were struggling to encourage Ms Y to use the shower so they were supporting her to wash outside of the cubicle, which she would engage with most days.
68. Records of the care Ms Y received at the supported living placement show that she received the care as set out in her care and support plan most of the time. She particularly enjoyed the regular walks care workers took her on. However, there were some challenges supporting Ms Y including:
1. she could become frustrated with communication challenges or changes to routine which resulted in her becoming violent to care workers and herself. Incidents were common, particularly at the start of the placement;
2. for a short period of time, Ms Y would only sleep in her living room. She was able to start sleeping regularly in her bed by April 2023; and
3. Ms Y would refuse to get out of the car to access the community or attend College C without significant effort and upset.
69. In late May 2023, Ms Y’s parents submitted a safeguarding referral to the Council. They said:
1. staff were not properly trained in how to support autistic people and as a result, they could not manage her behaviour, provide full personal care or communicate properly with her. This had led Ms Y to self-harm out of frustration;
2. carers were unable to manage Ms Y’s behaviour so had not been able to take her into the community;
3. Ms Y had not been able to choose to have a bath;
4. Ms Y was not getting any social interaction with adults her own age;
5. Ms Y did not have sufficient access to activities or sensory experiences; and
6. the site was not suitable as it was on a main road and did not have a garden or any open spaces in its grounds. They said this was not in line with what specialists had said Ms Y needed in reports to inform her EHC Plan.
70. The Council considered the referral and spoke to Ms Y’s parents, her OT, SALT, social worker and the support living provider. It noted:
1. Ms Y’s transition to the supported living placement was limited and rushed. She had arrived on move in day carrying aids to help staff communicate with her;
2. the Care Provider said it would normally expect a three-month transition period. It said staff had felt overwhelmed by the amount of information being shared about Ms Y in a short period of time after she moved in, and the number of incidents resulting from Ms Y’s behaviour;
3. it had been difficult to know what support Ms Y needed from the Care Provider because the SEND department had not communicated about Ms Y’s needs effectively;
4. the Care Provider felt the challenges communicating with Ms Y had a significant impact on her behaviour;
5. Ms Y’s SALT felt staff were keeping Ms Y safe, but they did not have enough experience and knowledge communicating with people with her needs and were not consistently applying information specialists had given them;
6. staff had not fully understood how important a routine was to Ms Y’s wellbeing, which had led to anxiety for her;
7. staff were trained in autism and now had extra input from a member of staff who works with residents one at a time to tailor support to their needs and ensure continuity of care between members of staff;
8. the Care Provider had prepared a plan to improve how it cared for Ms Y. This included training staff on how best to communicate with Ms Y, training on how to set boundaries with Ms Y and exploring new activities and sensory experiences for her, including installing a trampoline and paddling pool in the yard outside Ms Y’s house.
9. the Care Provider had explored whether it could have a bath fitted in Ms Y’s home, but its landlord had refused. However, there was no reason why Ms Y could not use the shower; her refusal was down to preference. The Care Provider was helping Ms Y have a full wash every day outside of the bath; and
10. Ms Y was still the only resident at the home, but the Care Provider was assessing more residents to see if they could move in.
71. The Council reviewed Ms Y’s care records and concluded there was no evidence of neglect or abuse by the Care Provider. It found:
1. Ms Y had experienced a turbulent transition from School A which had worsened the impact any transition would normally have on Ms Y; and
2. the Care Provider was taking proactive steps to improve its practice and had sought extra support to do so.

Findings: Case 23 008 396 supported living placement suitability

72. When the Council was unable to identify a suitable 52-week residential placement for Ms Y, it found a day educational placement at College C alongside supported living. Ms Y’s parents feel supported living is not appropriate for her. It is evident much of their concern is that supported living does not provide the level of care and development that would be available at a 52-week residential placement. However, that is not possible in supported living, which aims to meet an adult’s care needs while giving them a level of independence.
73. Ms Y’s parents’ concerns include that Ms Y does not have choice of whether to have a bath or shower, that staff are not appropriately trained in autism, that there are no other residents in the home yet and that it is located next to a main road without a garden.
74. While Ms Y’s home does not have a bath, her 2020 support plan only stated she needed help getting washed and did not specify she requires a bath. The April 2023 plan recognised Ms Y preferred a bath but did not find one was necessary to meet her needs. Because Ms Y prefers a bath and has refused to use the shower, staff continue to support her to wash every day outside of the shower cubicle. The Care Provider also contacted its landlord to explore whether they would agree to installing a bath. This was appropriate so the Council was not at fault.
75. The supported living placement is designed to help young people with needs like Ms Y’s and staff have training in autism to ensure they can provide that support. Before Ms Y moved in, the Care Provider confirmed it could meet her needs. I am satisfied the Council was not at fault in how it decided the Care Provider’s staff were suitably trained to meet Ms Y’s needs as an autistic person.
76. Ms Y is the first resident to move into the placement and her parents are concerned this means she is not getting enough social interaction. Ms Y’s 2020 care and support plan noted she needed help forming peer relationships and the April 2023 plan says she should have opportunities to socialise with peers. The Care Provider has explained it is assessing some potential new residents to see if they would get on with Ms Y. This is appropriate. In addition, as Ms Y is able to attend more of College C, she will have more opportunities to be around young people of her age. The Council was not at fault.
77. Ms Y’s 2020 care and support plan stated she needed a home away from a main road and with outside space. While the specialists who provided advice for Ms Y’s EHC Plan specified the outside space should be open, open spaces were not a need in Ms Y’s care plan. Ms Y has access to a yard outside her house and records show care workers take her for walks in the local area regularly. When Mr X raised concerns about the main road at the supported living placement, the Council confirmed Ms Y accesses the house from an entrance away from the main road to ensure her safety. The Council was not at fault in how it decided to place Ms Y somewhere without a garden and near a main road.

Findings: Case 23 008 396 supported living placement care issues

78. Although the Council was not at fault in how it decided the Care Provider’s supported living site could meet Ms Y’s adult social needs, it was at fault for the speed at which Ms Y was required to move in. The Council accepted Ms Y’s needs meant she needed a six-month transition period for moving out of School A and the Care Provider normally expects a three-month transition period. Ms Y had just one week.
79. Ms Y also moved into the supported living home with a care and support plan dating from 2020. This was fault; councils must carry out annual reviews of a person’s care and support plan to ensure they still meet the person’s needs. Such reviews are particularly important when an adult is moving to a new placement.
80. After the Council reviewed Ms Y’s plan in April 2023, it did not change the level of support in the plan. However, the plan included more detail about how best to support Ms Y, to minimise her distress and anxiety and manage her challenging behaviour. I am satisfied on balance, that had the Council reviewed the plan before Ms Y moved into supported living, it would have made the changes it made in April 2023.
81. The faults in paragraphs 78 and 79 meant the move was far more disruptive to Ms Y than it could have been. She was unprepared for the change in her routine, a routine which is a key part of the strategies to help her manage her symptoms and maintain her wellbeing. She was unfamiliar with staff and the site, which increased her anxiety and distress and staff had little time to develop stable relationships which could provide comfort. The fast transition and lack of detail in Ms Y’s care and support plan also meant staff were inadequately prepared in how to communicate with Ms Y, to learn the strategies which worked for her and how to best manage her challenging behaviour.
82. As a result, Ms Y struggled to cope with the transition. However, since Ms Y moved into the placement, the Care Provider has taken suitable steps to improve how it communicates with her and how it provides her care and support. I agree with the Council’s safeguarding conclusion that there is no evidence to suggest Ms Y is at risk of abuse or neglect.

What happened: Case 23 008 396 complaint

83. Mr X complained to the Council in July 2022. The Council replied four weeks later. Mr X remained unhappy and complained a few days later. The Council did not respond to him until late May 2023; over nine months later.
84. The Council told me its response was delayed because Mr X added new information to his complaint and because his MP contacted it about Ms Y’s case.

Findings: Case 23 008 396 complaints handling

85. According to its complaints policy, the Council should have responded to Mr X’s stage one complaint within two weeks (ten working days). It took four weeks, which was fault. The Council was also at fault for the significant delay in answering Mr X’s stage two complaint. It should have issued a response within 20 working days but instead took over nine months. I am not persuaded by the Council’s reasons for the complaint response taking so long; they do not justify such a lengthy delay. The fault caused Mr X avoidable frustration.

Back to top

Agreed action

86. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Apologise to Mr X for the distress, uncertainty and frustration he experienced as a result of the faults identified in this decision. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Pay Mr X £800 in recognition of that distress, uncertainty and frustration.
3. Pay Ms Y, care of Mr X, £7200 in recognition of Ms Y’s lost educational provision. This equates to £2400 per term, in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies.
4. Issue Ms Y’s final amended EHC Plan and make Mr X aware of his right to appeal the provision and placement named in that plan.
5. Pay Ms Y, care of Mr X, £1500 in recognition of the significant impact on Ms Y’s wellbeing of the short transition to supported living and the Council’s failure to review her care and support plan before the move.
87. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will also take the following actions.
1. Remind staff they must issue a decision to amend, maintain or cease a child or young person’s EHC Plan after an annual review meeting.
2. Remind staff they must complete amendments to EHC Plans within the timescales set out in law, guidance and by caselaw.
3. Review this case and identify what steps the Council should take to ensure its SEND and adult social care departments communicate effectively, particularly when a young person with an EHC Plan is moving to an adult social care setting. The Council should send the Ombudsman an action plan setting out those steps and how it intends to complete them.
88. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

89. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent reoccurrence of this fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman