Summary: On behalf of her son, Z, Miss X complained the Council failed to meet its statutory duty to provide suitable care for Z. We find the Council at fault for a delay in securing suitable care and respite for Z. This caused Z to miss out on eighteen months of care provision and caused distress and frustration for Miss X as she was left to provide the missed care. The Council has agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments to Z and Miss X and assess Z’s respite care needs to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. On behalf of her son, Z, Miss X complained the Council failed to meet its statutory duty to provide suitable care for Z. This includes failure to provide timely and appropriate respite care, making unsuitable recommendations, poor handling and misinformation around direct payments, failing to meet safeguarding needs and ceasing Z’s Education, Health and Care Plan without proper consultation. Miss X told us the Council’s actions have compromised the safety and wellbeing of her family. Miss X would like the Council to provide the correct amount of support to meet Z’s needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
3. We may investigate complaints from the person affected by the complaint issues, or from someone else if they have given their consent. If the person affected cannot give their consent, we may investigate a complaint from a person we decide is a suitable representative. (section 26A or 34C, Local Government Act 1974)
4. 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)
5. 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

What I have and have not considered

6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended).
7. The Council completed an annual review and issued its decision to cease to maintain Z’s Education, Health and Care Plan in March 2025. The Council’s decision to cease to maintain the Education, Health and Care Plan carried a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. For this reason, I have not investigated the part of Miss X’s complaint which relates to the Council’s decision to cease to maintain the Plan.
8. I considered all other parts of Miss X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss 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

Legal and administrative background

Education, Health and Care Plans

11. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 
12. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s decision to cease to maintain an EHC Plan.

Adult social care assessments and care plans

13. 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. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
14. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.

Care Plan

15. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support 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. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.

What happened

16. As of April 2024, Z had an EHC Plan dated 2022.
17. Z turned eighteen in April 2024. In July 2024, Z stopped attending his named educational setting. It was agreed Z would benefit more from a non-educational setting which would be more appropriate to support his development and wellbeing.
18. The Council’s adult social care team completed an assessment of Z’s social care needs in August 2024. Council records show, in response to this assessment, a referral was made for Z to receive respite care, and he was placed on a waiting list. There is no evidence the Council took further steps to secure respite care with this provider.
19. The Council did contact a different provider three times between September 2024 and March 2025 to request details and costing for respite care for Z however no respite care was secured.
20. Following the August 2024 care needs assessment, the Council’s adult social care team agreed to fund 3 days per week at an adult day care facility. Funding was provided via direct payment and information on direct payments was provided to Miss X. Z began attending the facility in September 2024.
21. In September 2024 the Council’s SEND team contacted Miss X to explain it intended to cease Z’s EHC Plan as he was no longer accessing formal education.
22. In October 2024, Miss X contacted the Council to request funding for Z to attend the adult care facility for an additional two days per week. Due to Z having an active EHC Plan, this request was referred to the Council’s SEND department for funding consideration.
23. Council records from November 2024 confirm it considered the additional two days per week were necessary for Z to effectively manage the safeguarding risk posed by him remaining at home. In response to this decision, the social care team contacted the SEND team to ask it to consider funding the additional two days.
24. In December 2024 the SEND team contacted Miss X to explain it did not agree to fund the additional two days at the adult care centre.
25. The SEND team completed an annual review of Z’s EHC Plan in January 2025. Following this review, the Council issued a decision to cease maintaining the Plan.
26. In August 2025, in response to Miss X’s complaint, the Council agreed there had been an unacceptable delay in confirming suitable respite provision, but it did not explain why the delay had happened.
27. The Council’s complaint response also explained the Council had considered alternative care options at various parts of the process and discussed these with Miss X. The Council explained it is helpful to explore different possibilities and care options, however it ultimately secured Miss X’s preferred provider.
28. From the beginning of May 2026, the Council secured the additional two days of funding for Z to attend the day care facility for five days per week.
29. The Council has not provided any evidence suitable respite provision has been confirmed.

My findings

30. Council records show Z was referred for respite care following his care needs assessment in August 2024. The Council considered Z required respite in August 2024 and had not secured the provision by May 2026. This is a twenty one month delay. The delay is fault which caused Z to miss out on respite care, and it caused Miss X distress, frustration as she was left to care for Z.
31. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to provide a direct payment to secure the initial three days per week at the adult care centre.
32. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s exploration of alternative provision providers.
33. The Council’s records show it considered Z required two additional days at the day care centre from November 2024. The additional days were not secured until May 2026. This is a delay of approximately 18 months. This delay is fault which caused Z to miss out on support he required and caused significant distress for Miss X and her family due to the ongoing safeguarding risk.

Back to top

Action

34. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Z and Miss X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. 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.
• Make a symbolic payment of £3600 to Z in recognition of the delay in securing suitable care and respite. This is calculated at £200 per month of delay and takes into account the individual circumstances of Z’s case.
• Make an additional symbolic payment of £2100 to Miss X in recognition of the uncertainty, distress and frustration caused by the Council’s delay in securing suitable care and respite provision for Z. This is calculated at £100 per month of delay and considers the additional care Miss X has provided due to the delays.
• Complete an up to date assessment of Z’s requirement for respite care. If the Council determines Z requires respite care, the Council should ensure this is secured and begins within three months of the final decision.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman