Summary: We found there was fault in the way the Council’s Adult Social Care Team considered Y’s need for a residential or supported living placement. We found the errors and delays caused Y to miss out on five weeks of education and caused frustration and distress. We recommended a payment, an apology and review of procedures and training.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains that:

• An assessment of needs for his son (Y), completed in December 2024 was of poor quality. It contained numerous spelling and grammatical errors and it was factually inaccurate. In parts, incorrect statements were made that were negative and harmful to him.
• The December assessment was not shared with them to allow them to comment or address the issues before it was shared with a number of third parties.
• There was a delay in Adult Social Care reassessing Y and addressing his need for a boarding school place (or possibly supported living placement) to enable him to attend a college he wished to attend. The college was named in his Education Health and Care Plan (as a day placement) in May 2025.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Care Quality Commission (CQC).
4. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background (Y’s Education Health and Care Plan)

7. Y is a young person with special educational needs. He has an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan). As at December 2024, Y was aged 18. Y was seeking a college placement to begin from 1 September 2025. This made 2025 a key transition year for Y; moving to a further education college.
8. In a transitional year, an EHC Plan review and any amendments must be completed by 15 February in the calendar year in which the child is due to transfer into or between school phases. We previously established that there was a nine-week delay in issuing Y’s EHC Plan. It was not issued until early April. At that point it did not name a placement.
9. The Council’s case notes evidence that Mr X was speaking to the Council about a residential placement for Y in March 2025. Mr X chased the Council during April and May.
10. On 20 May the Council’s Special Educational Needs Department (SEND) agreed a daytime placement at School A (Y’s preference). Y’s EHC Plan was updated on 27 May 2025 naming his new school. This was eight weeks later than required by the SEN Code. The guidance specifies that a placement should be named by 31 March to allow families and institutions enough time to plan, prepare, and arrange necessary support for the 1 September start date.

Mr X’s Complaint

11. As set out above, we found in a previous investigation, the Council had failed to review Y’s EHC Plan and name Y’s education placement for 1 September in the required timescales. This reduced the time available to plan for Y’s residential placement by around eight weeks.
12. This complaint is about the actions of the Council’s Adult Social Care Team (ASC). Their role was in assessing Y’s social care needs and deciding what care and support Y would need to take up his college placement.
13. In March 2025 the SEND team sent Mr X a decision from a multi-disciplinary panel stating no decision had been reached about Y’s placement for September. In the email the SEND worker told Mr X that the panel ‘could only consider a day placement due to the fact that ASC will not support a residential placement’. It noted SEND’s actions were:

• to ask School A if they could offer a daytime placement only.
• for SEND to liaise with ASC to see if they would agree to fund a residential place.

14. The Council’s case notes evidence that Mr X was speaking to the ASC team about a residential placement for Y from March 2025. An email from an ASC officer to Mr X stated the officer was rather shocked at what Mr X had been told by SEND [that ASC had declined to fund a residential place]. The ASC officer’s understanding was that the ASC team were required to wait for SEND to take the educational package to panel for approval before ASC applies for funding for the residential side. They stated they would discuss this at a consistent practice meeting and request that SEND go back to panel and update them.
15. Mr X chased ASC for a progress update during April.
16. In mid-May Mr X chased ASC again, highlighting that the delay in establishing Y’s placement for September was causing stress as Y was very anxious.
17. Mr X told ASC in early June that SEND had agreed the daytime placement and he chased progress on agreeing a residential place.
18. A multi-disciplinary decision record from May 2025 (when SEND approved Y’s daytime placement at School A) stated that ASC would not consider a residential placement until SEND had agreed the place there. It stated ‘ASC can investigate the residential option, but SEND will only agree to this is(sic) ASC fully fund the total residential element.’
19. Case notes recording a telephone conversation between ASC and Mr X on 10 June 2025 stated ‘I have explained the process that we are led by SEND and I can see that they have named [School A] as a day provision and that even if the residential was considered we would only pay a care cube rate and that SEND would need to agree the difference. Dad asked if there was a difference in cost I have advised I believe there is a discrepancy.’
20. Mr X complained on 18 June 2025. He stated:

• It had been three weeks since SEND agreed a daytime placement at School A but there had been a lack of communication from ASC since then about Y’s boarding placement. He stated he was getting no response to his contacts.
• He wanted an urgent written update from ASC and asked that the matter was given priority and appropriate oversight.

21. On 17 June the Council shared a copy of Y’s needs assessment with Mr X. Mr X raised concerns about the format, grammar, spelling and typographical errors in it. He also noted that it contained incorrect behavioural information which might lead care providers to believe they could not meet Y’s needs.
22. At the end of June the Council noted it should not share the assessment with any further providers. It also contacted the providers it had sent it to and advised them the assessment was inaccurate and should be discarded.
23. During July the Council received feedback from supported living providers. Most stated they could not meet needs. Two agreed to assess. Mr X also raised concern that Y did not manage transport well and a supported living accommodation would unnecessarily require transport to the placement which a residential place would avoid.
24. I understand that a revised care needs assessment was shared with Y’s parents in early August. They confirmed in mid-August they were happy with it.
25. As at 25 August Mr X spoke with a social worker and expressed frustration that the level of preparation and organisation required for supported living placements had not been explained or understood. In fact, it was clear that neither the family nor social worker had been aware of the details involved. Mr X stated one supported living provider had met them. The provider had explained the placement was unfurnished, details of transport to and from college needed to be agreed and funded and a Motobility car had been raised as an option. They needed to work out how meal preparation, shopping and activities would be arranged and paid for. The placement was also likely to require changes to Y’s benefit entitlements. This was a lot to organise and agree in a very short space of time. Mr X stated that supported living in future may be appropriate for Y, however, they were close to Y’s college start date and supported living arrangements required a great deal of thought. There was concern that it would not be achievable in the time available.
26. The social worker stated that generally ASC would provide funding for accommodation up to a certain level, with the SEND team being responsible for any top-up required. She stated in this case, SEND had not agreed additional funding. The social worker agreed to escalate to her manager to consider if a residential placement could be reconsidered for this year to provide time to properly consider supported living placements for the future.
27. On 29 August Mr X chased progress on agreeing Y’s living arrangements noting that term started in two weeks.
28. On 5 September the Council’s response acknowledged issues had occurred when Y’s assessment was done in December 2024. The family should have been involved and a copy sent for their comments before it was sent for authorisation. It apologised this didn’t happen. This could have resolved and removed inaccuracies earlier. The Council acknowledged the correct process had not been followed.
29. On 5 September the Council also put Y’s case to a further SEND multi-disciplinary panel. It decided not to agree a boarding place. ASC staff told Mr X they intended to meet the panel to go through additional evidence and they had advised School A the decision process was still ongoing.
30. On 12 September Mr X sent a legal challenge asking the Council to confirm its position.
31. On 16 September a second referral was made to the panel. The outcome was that the panel had been unable to reach a decision. I understand the Head of SEND subsequently agreed to fund a residential placement for Y for the first term (until December 2025). On this basis Y was able to start attending School A, around five weeks late on 7 October 2025. This has since been reviewed.
32. As at December 2025 Y’s revised care needs assessment was still in draft form. The Council noted there had been a change of social worker in the meantime. The assessment was signed off by a manager in December 2025.

What should have happened

Y’s December 2024 Assessment

33. The Council acknowledged that the correct process was not followed when this assessment was drafted. Y’s family were not involved or given the chance to review the content.
34. The failure to carry out appropriate quality checks on the assessment and the failure to share this with Y’s family for their comments was fault.
35. Regrettably the assessment contained incorrect information about Y. This was later shared with supported living providers, giving a false impression of Y’s needs and causing difficulties and wasting time in organising a placement for Y.

Delay in considering a residential boarding place for Y

36. It is evident that things ASC staff told Mr X at various points contradict what SEND have said. There has been confusion about what process should be followed to decide if Y should have a residential place. Both teams suggested to Mr X that the decision lay with the other.
37. The Council shared multi-disciplinary decision records with us, but the evidence suggests that there was a significant lack of co-operation and joint working between the teams involved and a lack of understanding about roles and responsibilities within ASC and which department had the lead role. This was fault.
38. I do not find that ASC were at fault for considering both residential boarding and supported living options for Y in principle. However, the difficulties caused by the inaccurate social care assessment led to some delays progressing supported living options. The overall confusion and lack of proper joint-working caused repeated referrals to panel and there were also periods of inactivity.
39. Statutory guidance requires councils to have decided upon and named placements in a transitional year by 31 March. We found that in an earlier investigation that the Council had not met its statutory duty and it was nine weeks late in doing so. So, the fault we have found above only compounds that initial delay, meaning Y was not able to start his college placement for five weeks.
40. The lack of clarity about who should decide what, the delay and the impact on Y, was also frustrating and upsetting for Mr X and his family.
41. Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 to £2,400 per term to acknowledge the harm caused by that loss. While this is generally for education complaints, I have used it as a relevant guide to determine remedy in this complaint about the actions of ASC staff.
42. The figure we use is based on the impact on the child and takes account of factors such as:
• The severity of the child’s SEN as set out in their EHC plan.
• Any educational provision, full time or part time - without some or all of the specified support – that was made during the period.
• Whether additional provision can now remedy some or all of the loss.
• Whether the period concerned was a significant one for the child or young person’s school career – for example the first year of compulsory education, the transfer to secondary school, or the period preparing for public exams.
43. The symbolic payment is intended to remedy injustice caused to the child from missing provision, as well as consequential injustice also caused to the family due to this fault.
44. In Y’s case I have recommended a payment of £900 to recognise that Y missed five weeks of education in a transitional year and to reflect that he has special educational needs.
45. In response to our draft decision, the Council confirmed that the decision about Y’s educational placement, and whether it should be a daytime or residential placement sits with its Special Educational Needs Department (SEND). It acknowledged the delays in decision making and agreed to our findings and recommendations.

Back to top

Action

46. Within four weeks of my final decision:
47. The Council should send a written apology to Y and his family for the fault we have identified. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedies here.
48. To recognise the loss of education and frustration that the fault caused, the Council should make a payment to Mr X of £900.
49. The Head of SEN and ASC should meet to discuss our findings in this case and to review the Council’s documented procedures. The Council should write to us to set out any changes in procedures or additional training that are required to avoid a repetition of the issues we have identified. The Council should also then communicate the correct process to all relevant staff to ensure clarity in such cases in future and provide evidence it has done this.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

51. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman