Summary: Ms X complains the Council has not dealt properly with services for her family including reviewing an Education Health and Care Plan, her son’s education provision, blue badge applications, a carers assessment and has not handled her complaints properly. The Council is at fault because it delayed an Education Health and Care Plan annual review, failed to make special educational provision, closed a child in need plan without informing her and did not deal with part of her complaint through the correct complaints process. Ms X suffered a delayed right of appeal and Y missed special educational needs provision. The Council should apologise, make a symbolic payment to Ms X, repay Ms X costs of therapy provision and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms X, complains through four separate complaints, A, B C and D, that the Council has not dealt properly with issues relating to her child Y covering education, blue badge applications and adult social care because:

• It did not comply with statutory timescales for an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review;
• It did not consider her application for education transport properly;
• A reference to a diagnosis was removed from her son’s EHC Plan;
• Therapies listed in her son’s EHC Plan were not provided;
• It did not properly consider her request for Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) in February 2023;
• It did not properly consider two blue badge applications in 2022 and 2023;
• It closed a carers assessment in August 2023 without telling her;
• It misleadingly advertised a week dedicated to a community of unpaid carers;
• It signed an ‘Safety Valve’ agreement with the Government in 2021; and
• It did not investigate her complaints properly through the statutory children’s complaints process.

2. I have dealt with all 4 complaints in one decision statement for ease because they are linked. The individual complaints are outlined in the Chronology section, paragraphs 41 to 45.
3. Ms X says there has been a significant delay to her complaints being dealt with and she has been left as an unpaid carer for her children with no support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

6. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. 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.
8. 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)
9. 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.
10. 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)
11. 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)
12. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

13. I have investigated that part of MS X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with an EHC Plan annual review, non-provision of special educational needs provision, her EOTAS request, a blue badge application, the closure of a carers assessment in 2023 and how her complaints were dealt with.
14. I have not investigated the following aspects of the complaint:
• Home to school Transport – I will not investigate this because it is out of time.
• Diagnosis removal – I cannot investigate this because it was subject to a right of appeal to SEND Tribunal in February 2022.
• Swimming lessons - I will not investigate this as there is no indication of fault.
• Blue badge – I will not investigate the first application as this is out of time. I will investigate the second application from December 2023.
• Unpaid carers advertisement - I will not investigate this as there is no indication of fault or ongoing significant injustice.
• Safety Valve Agreement - I will not investigate this as there is no indication of fault or ongoing significant injustice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
16. Ms 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

Law, guidance and policies

Reviewing EHC Plans

17. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176)
18. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal.
19. Where the 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 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). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.

Maintaining the EHC Plan

20. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable.
21. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to:
• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement;
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time.

Appeal rights and Jurisdiction

22. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
23. This means that if a child or young person is not attending school, and we decide the reason for non-attendance is linked to, or is a consequence of, a parent or young person’s disagreement about the special educational provision or the educational placement in the EHC Plan, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision.
24. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents or young person. If the parent or young person goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the Tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded. We would not usually look at the period while any changes to the EHC Plan are finalised, so long as the council follows the statutory timescales to make those amendments.
25. The same restrictions apply where someone had a right of appeal to the Tribunal and it was reasonable for them to have used that right.

The Blue Badge Scheme

26. The Department for Transport’s (DfT) Blue Badge Scheme helps people with severe physical mobility problems, or other conditions affecting their mobility, to access goods and services. It does this by allowing them, or their carer, to park near their destination. The scheme gives parking concessions to Blue Badge holders. Councils are responsible for the day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme. This includes assessing applicants’ eligibility for the badge.
27. Since August 2019 the guidance has included the introduction of assessment criteria for people with severe mobility problems caused by non-visible (‘hidden’) disabilities.
28. The DfT guidance sets out what assessors may wish to consider when assessing a person’s mobility. The guidance is non-statutory. This means councils do not have to follow it, but most councils do. We expect councils to explain if they decide not to follow such guidance.
29. The guidance says councils must make sure they only issue badges to residents who satisfy one or more of the criteria set out in legislation.
30. There are two types of eligibility criteria:
• where a person is eligible without further assessment, they will receive a Blue Badge;
• where a person is eligible subject to further assessment, they have to fulfil one or more of three criteria to qualify for a badge. They must:
1. drive a vehicle regularly, have a severe disability in both arms and be unable to operate, or have considerable difficulty operating, all or some types of parking meter; or
2. have been certified by an expert assessor as having an enduring or substantial disability, which causes them, during the course of a journey, to be unable to walk or experience very considerable difficulty walking, which may include very considerable psychological distress; or
3. be at risk of serious harm when walking, or pose a serious risk of harm to any other person.
31. If an applicant is unhappy with the outcome of an assessment, they may ask the council to review the decision.

Carer’s Assessment - Section 17 duties

32. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. A child is in need if:
• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.
33. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children)
34. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a child in need plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent.

Statutory Children’s complaints process

35. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services. The accompanying statutory guidance, ‘Getting the Best from Complaints’, explains councils’ responsibilities in more detail. We also published practitioner guidance on the procedures, setting out our expectations.
36. The first stage of the procedure is local resolution. Councils have up to 20 working days to respond.
37. If a complainant is not happy with a council’s stage one response, they can ask that it is considered at stage two. At this stage of the procedure, councils appoint an investigating officer (IO) to look into the complaint and an independent person (IP) who is responsible for overseeing the investigation and ensuring its independence.
38. The whole stage two process should be completed within 25 working days but guidance allows an extension for up to 65 working days where required.
39. If a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of the stage two investigation, they can ask for a stage three review by an independent panel. The council must hold the panel within 30 working days of the date of request, and then issue a final response within 20 working days of the panel hearing.

What happened?

40. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation. As well as the over-arching complaint chronology, I have broken down the key elements of Ms X’s complaint chronology into separate areas of her complaint so that they can be more easily understood.

Chronology

Complaint A

41. Ms X complained to the Council in November 2022 about a blue badge renewal application. (Complaint A).
• Ms X complained that a blue badge application had been refused and had not been considered properly. The Council did not uphold her complaint.
• Ms X escalated her complaint to stage 2 that the Council had not considered hidden disabilities. The Council gave its final complaint response to Ms X in March 2023. It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint.
• I have not investigated any part of Ms X’s Complaint A as outlined in paragraph 14 above.
42. In October 2023 Ms X contacted the Council about Complaint A and the blue badge. The Council told Ms X that it was too late to appeal that decision and she needed to complete a fresh application.
• Ms X completed a new application for a blue badge in December 2023.
• The Council refused Ms X’s application. Ms X did not challenge the decision.

Complaint B

43. Ms X complained to the Council in October 2023 about Y’s EHC Plan annual review, provision of therapies, Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) and the blue badge application refusal. (Complaint B).
• The Council responded to Ms X at stage 1 of its complaints process in November 2023. It partially upheld Ms X’s complaint about Y’s EHC Plan annual review and provision of therapies.
44. Ms X attempted to escalate Complaint B to stage 2 in September 2024. The Council declined to consider her stage 2 complaint due to the delay in it being made.

Complaints C and D

45. Ms X made two new stage 1 complaints to the Council in October 2024. (Complaints C and D).
• Complaint C covered all outstanding aspects of her complaint and was a duplication of her attempted complaint escalating Complaint B to stage 2. The Council upheld parts of Complaint C.
• Complaint D stated the Council did not handle her complaints properly. It partially upheld Complaint D.

Analysis

EHC Plan annual review

46. The Council responded to this part of Ms X’s complaint in response to Complaint C. The Council’s stage 1 complaint response accepted that:
• It was outside of the statutory timescales for finalising Y’s EHC Plan and it should have accepted Ms X’s comments in writing and not delayed an annual review.
• There was an error and it would include details of a diagnosis in Y’s EHC Plan.
47. The Council had previously completed a review of Y’s EHC Plan in February 2022. It should therefore have completed a review of this EHC Plan by February 2023.
48. The annual review was completed towards the end of October 2023 and the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan in December 2024.
49. I have reviewed Y’s EHC Plans dated February 2022 and December 2024.
• There was no difference in the extent of Speech and Language Therapy and Occupational Therapy provision between the EHC Plans.
• The 2024 EHC Plan contains a range of special educational needs provision which is not specified in the February 2022 EHC Plan. On the balance of probabilities, Y missed some special educational provision between February 2023 and December 2024.
50. There was therefore a delay of 22 months, equivalent to nearly six terms, to the Council updating Y’s EHC Plan. I agree this is fault by the Council. Ms X suffered injustice because her right of appeal was delayed and Y suffered injustice because he missed special educational needs provision.

Therapies

51. Ms X complained that SaLT and OT provision had not been made for Y in Complaint B in October 2023 and she had had to pay for therapy services privately over a two year period.
52. The Council’s stage 1 complaint response in November 2023 did not say that Y had received the therapy provision set out in his EHC Plan. It accepted that Ms X had had difficulty accessing these services. It said, “I am very sorry to hear that you have had some difficulties with accessing community services for this. However, the local authority could look into the possibility of a Personal Budget for you to be able to secure this provision. I will ensure that as part of the annual review process that this is sent to the SEN panel for consideration.”
53. In response to my enquiries for this investigation, the Council says:
• Therapies were not delivered between the 2023 EHC Plan annual review and May 2025 as Y’s EHC Plan was still in draft.
• The December 2024 EHC Plan provided a personal budget for Ms X to be able to provide this provision within Y’s EHC Plan.
• It stated to Ms X in its stage 2 complaint response, “The Council will consider a contribution towards the cost of the therapy provision if you can provide confirmation on what has been provided and receipt of paid invoices.” And says no further information was received from Ms X.
54. There was no change in the level of SaLT and OT provision in Y’s EHC Plan between February 2022 and December 2024. The Council should have continued to deliver the special educational needs provision set out in Y’s 2022 EHC Plan, during the delayed annual review process. This is fault by the Council. Y missed special educational needs provision between February 2023 to May 2025. This compounds the injustice already identified in paragraph 50 above.

EOTAS

55. The Council says Ms X first mentioned EOTAS in an email in February 2023 but did not make a formal request.
56. I have seen the email sent by Ms X to the Council, as well as the Council’s response. The Council said it, “will only fund EOTAS for children or young people if it is satisfied that it would be inappropriate for the provision to be made in a school or post-16 institution. With [Y], this is not the case as there are schools which the local authority can consult and would be suitable for him.”
57. Ms X complained that the Council had not properly considered her request for EOTAS educational provision for Y in Complaint B in October 2023.
58. Ms X’s complaint stated she would be unable to take Y to any school named by the Council.
59. The Council’s complaint response stated, “The definition of Education Other Than At School is set out in Section 61 of the Children and Families Act, 2014. It is specific to circumstances where the provision a child or young person requires for their education cannot be made available in a school or college setting. [Y’s] educational needs can be met in a school and the provision set out in his EHCP is deliverable in a setting, for this reason it was correct that EOTAS was not agreed for [Y]. School travel assistance is not a special educational need and does not fall within the remit of Section F as provision.”
60. In her stage 2 escalation of complaint B Ms X said she disagreed with the Council’s decision. Ms X had the opportunity to be able to appeal the final issued EHC Plan in December 2024 in respect of Y’s educational placement, if she disagreed with the EHC Plan and believed that EOTAS was appropriate for him. This part of Ms X’s complaint is therefore out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and I have not considered it further.

Blue badge

61. In October 2023 Ms X emailed the Council saying she had not been informed why her blue badge application in 2022, (the subject of Complaint A), had been refused. The Council replied to Ms X saying it was now too late to appeal against the outcome and she should complete a new application.
62. Ms X made a new application for a blue badge in December 2023, after receiving this reply.
63. In January 2024 the Council refused to grant Ms X a blue badge. The decision letter stated any appeal against the decision should be made within four weeks.
64. Ms X raised this matter as part of Complaint C, in October 2024.
65. The Council’s stage 1 complaint response said:
• “To be issued with a Blue Badge the applicant must meet the set criteria, it is not for the parent or Guardian to request the Blue Badge to be issued.”
• “If a Blue Badge is being applied for under the “hidden disability” criteria, up to date, medical information and a EHCP needs to be provided. “
• “The assessors are within their rights to request this or any additional information, as they need to determine that the applicant meets the set requirements for a Blue Badge. Without this or any other proof they are not in a position to make a fair assessment. This information is not irrelevant for the assessment for a Blue Badge.
• “If an applicant does not meet the set criteria for a Blue Badge, we cannot issue one. Access Independent are qualified assessors in this field.”
66. Ms X stated in response that the, “assessor company misread my application in noting that it was emotional dysregulation that would cause someone with hidden disabilities to be unsafe on the road. I had provided evidence about [Y’s] dyspraxia and ADHD.” She also said the EHC Plan requested by the assessor was incorrect and out of date.
67. The Council is incorrect to say that a copy of an EHCP needs to be provided. This may or may not provide supporting evidence, but it is not a prerequisite for a positive application outcome. This is fault by the Council.
68. The assessor considered the supporting evidence provided by Ms X in relation to her blue badge application.
69. Y’s December 2024 EHC Plan, (which was delayed and therefore unavailable to the blue badge assessor), does not provide clear evidence that would indicate Y meets the criteria for a blue badge.
70. Ms X had the right to appeal the decision outcome within four weeks. She did not do so.
71. On the balance of probabilities, the Council followed the correct process when it considered Ms X’s blue badge application, and the delay to finalising Y’s updated EHC Plan did not influence the decision outcome. This is not fault by the Council.
72. The Council’s stage 2 complaint response referred to the introduction of a ‘Streetspace’ and not her blue badge application. The response did not address her concerns set out in paragraph 66 above. The Council should have fully responded to Ms X’s stage 2 complaints. It did not. This is fault by the Council. Ms X did not have her complaint properly considered. This did not cause any injustice because the outcome of the blue badge application would not have been different.

Carers assessment

73. Ms X complained to the Council in October 2023 in Complaint B about a carer’s assessment having been closed without telling her. This issue was then raised again in Complaint C in October 2024. The Council did not uphold this complaint.
74. The Council responded to Ms X in the stage 1 complaint response to complaint. It said a Child and Family Assessment was completed in January 2023 and the Council made referrals to several services after assessing Ms X’s circumstances, before her case was closed in August 2023.
75. Ms X included this complaint as part of Complaint C in October 2024. The Council did not respond to Ms X’s complaint in its stage 1 complaint response. In its stage 2 complaint response the Council said Ms X had declined the support it offered at the time. It also said it had developed its Family Health service and would consider a reassessment of need if Ms X wished it to.
76. The background to this part of Ms X’s complaint includes:
• I have seen case notes from November 2022 showing that Ms X made an online referral for an adult carers assessment and was contacted by the Council to obtain further information. The Council then shared the referral with its Children’s Services department.
• I have seen a record of the CFA assessment subsequently completed by the Council in January 2023. This recommended a review to establish whether Ms X was eligible for any support services. The case notes show that the Council considered Ms X’s views about what support she would like.
• I have seen information from the Council which shows its Early Intervention Service considered Ms X’s circumstances in February 2023 and advised a range of potential support options.
• I have seen records of meetings showing the Council initiated a Child in Need plan which was in place between April 2023 and August 2023. The Council has provided evidence which shows it:
1. Contacted the education service about educational needs
2. Asked for advice from the NHS about Ms X’s children’s needs
3. Liaised with the Housing service about Ms X’s request for Council Tax Support
4. Liaised with Disability Social Work to explore eligibility for support
77. The Council did not provide any evidence to show Ms X was informed of the Child in Need plan being closed in August 2023. On the balance of probabilities, the Council did not inform Ms X of the closure of her case. This is fault by the Council. However, Ms X did not suffer any significant ongoing injustice because the Council had already completed the actions in paragraph 76 above.

Complaints handling

78. Ms X complained to the Council in October 2024 in Complaint D, about not accepting her stage 2 complaint about Complaint B and not dealing with her complaint through the statutory children’s complaints process.
79. The Council logged Ms X’s complaint at the end of January 2025, a delay of over three months.
80. The Council’s stage 1 complaint response in February 2025 did not uphold Ms X’s complaint. The Council’s stage 2 complaint response partially upheld the complaint, acknowledging that there were difficulties in navigating information about complaints processes through its website and that there had been a delay dealing with the complaint.

Escalation of Complaint B

81. Ms X submitted her stage 2 complaint in September 2024, 10 months after the Council sent its stage 1 response. She said the reason her stage 2 complaint was made at that time was because the Council’s website did not state a timeline by which to submit a response, and she had ‘overwhelming other duties’.
82. The Council’s stage 1 complaint response in November 2023 stated, “If you are not satisfied with the outcome of your Stage 1 complaint, you are entitled to ask for the complaint to be reviewed at Stage 2 within 28 calendar days of receiving the outcome to the Stage 1 complaint. If you wish to raise a Stage 2 complaint, please explain in what way you believe that your complaint was not addressed properly at Stage 1.”
83. Ms X was clearly notified of the timeframe by which she needed to indicate she was unhappy with the stage 1 response. This is not fault by the Council.

Statutory complaints process

84. Ms X was unhappy that her complaint had not been considered through the statutory children’s complaints process because the information on the Council’s website had not been clear about what could be complained about using which process and how to do this.
85. The Council partially upheld Ms X’s Complaint 4 saying, “Whilst the information you were looking for was available on our website, we acknowledge that there would be some difficulties for some of our residents in navigating some of these [web] pages. I also acknowledge the delay in logging your complaint, and while we have completed a full investigation now and hopefully answered your questions, I am sorry and would like to apologise for the inconvenience this has caused. As a result, your complaint has been partially upheld.”
86. Most of Ms X’s complaint C was not concerning statutory children’s social care functions. It is right that the Council considered those elements through the corporate complaints process. This is not fault by the Council.
87. In response to my enquiries, the Council said Ms X’s stage 1 complaint, “did not include any issues raised in respect of the Intake Team...” It also said, “The Stage 2 for some reason had new concerns raised about service provision or involvement by the Intake team.”
88. I disagree with the Council. I have reviewed Ms X’s stage 1 complaint and it clearly makes reference to the Children’s Social Services Intake Team. The Council did not respond to this part of Ms X’s complaint in its stage 1 complaint response. It only did so at stage 2 after Ms X escalated her complaint.
89. On the balance of probabilities, if it had not been for the fault accepted by the Council, Ms X may have been able to make part of her complaint through the statutory children’s services complaints process, rather than the corporate complaints procedure.
90. The Council should have recognised and acknowledged part of Ms X’s complaint was about children’s social services and dealt with that part of her complaint through the statutory children’s complaints process. It did not. This is fault by the Council. Ms X did not suffer any injustice as a result because, taking into consideration paragraphs 76 and 77 above, this would not have resulted in a different outcome.

Action by the Council

91. The Council has identified necessary service improvements as a result of Ms X’s complaint, including:
• In its response to Complaint B in November 2023, the Council said it had worked on a full staff development programme, implemented staff supervision and begun to embed co-production in relation to EHC Plan reviews.
• In its response to Complaint C in February 2025, the Council said it had developed its Family Help Service since 2023 and would consider a reassessment of needs if Ms X would find that helpful.
• In its response to Complaint D in April 2025, the Council said it was redesigning its website, was introducing a new online complaints form which would incorporate more guidance when people submitted a complaint, and would deliver training on recognising complaints to staff.

The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies

92. 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. The figure should be based on the impact on the child and take 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.
• Lost or delayed right of appeal to tribunal.
93. I have considered an appropriate remedy in this case, taking into account Y’s EHC Plans, the accepted loss of provision, Ms X’s delayed right of appeal and the individual circumstances. I have seen invoices for Occupational Therapy provision paid for by Ms X between February 2024 and April 2025

Back to top

Action

94. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council should take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Ms X for the fault found We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Ms X £6,300 in respect of missed SEN provision, at a rate of £900 per term for 7 terms between February 2023 to May 2025.
• Pay Ms X £2075 In respect of her quantifiable economic loss for Occupational Therapy provision that was paid for by Ms X between February 2024 to April 2025.
• Provide guidance to staff that an EHC Plan is not essential for a successful blue badge application in respect of a child.
95. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman