Summary: The Council was at fault for a delay in deciding whether to reassess Y’s special educational needs, a delay in carrying out that reassessment and a failure to either provide full-time alternative education whilst Y was out of school or record the reasons part-time provision was a suitable education for him. The Council will make a payment to Y’s parents to remedy the uncertainty about whether the alternative education was suitable, and the frustration caused by the delays. It will work with relevant health bodies to prevent recurrence of the delays. The Trust was at fault for a delay in providing the advice the Council requested for the reassessment, and a failure to properly record the initial request and its response, for which it will apologise.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide a suitable alternative education for his son, Y, when he was out of school from April 2021, until alternative provision was put in place in January 2022. This meant he missed out on education. Y also did not receive support for his special educational needs (SEN) as set out in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan in that period.
2. Mr X also complained about delays in re-assessing Y’s SEN following the annual review of his EHC plan in March 2021, and about a lack of appropriate joint commissioning arrangements with health authorities.
3. Mr X said Y was receiving home tuition, pending a mental health assessment and input from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), which is part of the Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust). He said that the Trust’s delay in providing health advice for Y’s EHC plan were delaying his reintegration to school.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated the complaints set out above. Mr X also said he was unhappy about the support the Council provided when the family moved from another council area to this Council’s area in early 2020. I have not investigated events prior to March 2021 and explain my reasons at the end of this decision statement.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

5. The Ombudsmen have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. Since April 2015, these complaints have been considered by a single team acting on behalf of both Ombudsmen. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA,as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA)
6. The Ombudsmen investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, the Ombudsmen consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
7. If it has, they may suggest a remedy. Our recommendations might include asking the organisation to apologise or to pay a financial remedy, for example, for inconvenience or worry caused.  We might also recommend the organisation takes action to stop the same mistakes happening again.
8. The Ombudsmen cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, sections 3(4)- 3(7))
9. The Ombudsmen cannot investigate late complaints unless they decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to the Ombudsmen about something an organisation has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 9(4).)
10. When investigating complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, the Ombudsmen may make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that during an investigation, we will weigh up the available evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened. 
11. If the Ombudsmen are satisfied with the actions or proposed actions of the bodies that are the subject of the complaint, they can complete their investigation and issue a decision statement. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA and Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
12. 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

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered:
• the information Mr X provided, and spoke to Mr and Mrs X by telephone;
• the information the Council and the Trust provided in response to my enquiries;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
14. Mr X, the Council, and the Trust had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Education Health and Care (EHC) Plans

15. A child with special educational needs (SEN) 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.
16. Section 26 of the Children and Families Act 2014 says councils and their partner commissioning bodies must make arrangements (“joint commissioning arrangements”) about the education, health and care provision to be secured for children who have SEN. This must include arrangements for securing EHC needs assessments.
17. Regulation 6 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) says when carrying out an EHC needs assessment, a council must seek advice, including advice from health professionals, about the needs of the child or young person and the support they may need to achieve the intended outcomes.
18. Regulation 8 says where a council requests the cooperation of another body in securing an EHC needs assessment, that body must comply with such a request within 6 weeks of the date they receive it. A body need not comply if it is impractical to do so because:
1. exceptional circumstances affect the child, the child’s parent or the young person during that 6 week period;
2. the child, the child’s parent or the young person are absent from the area for a continuous period of not less than 4 weeks during that 6 week period; or
3. the child or young person fails to keep an appointment for an examination or test made by the body during that 6 week period.
19. The Council for Disabled Children has provided guidance on the “Requirements to provide Health Advice within six weeks”, which is available on its website. This provides guidance for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) on how health providers can meet their obligations in respect of EHC assessments and plans.
20. The statutory guidance: Special educational needs and disability code: 0-25 years says:
• EHC plans should be reviewed annually. The first review should be held within 12 months of the date the EHC plan was issued. (para 9.169)
• Within 4 weeks of the review meeting, the council must decide whether it proposes to keep the plan as it is, amend the plan or cease to maintain the plan, and inform the child’s parents and school of its decision. (para 9.176)
• The council must conduct a re-assessment of a child’s plan if requested to do so by the child’s parent or their school. (para 9.187)
• The council can refuse to carry out a re-assessment if it is less than 6 months since the previous assessment, or if it thinks a further EHC needs assessment is not necessary, for example because it considers the child’s needs have not changed significantly. (para 9.188)
• The council must inform the child’s parents of its decision whether or not to carry out a re-assessment within 15 days of receiving their request. If it refuses to carry out the re-assessment it must tell them about their right to appeal that decision. (para 9.190)
• The process for re-assessment is the same as for a first assessment and issuing of the first EHC plan. The overall maximum time limit for a re-assessment is 14 weeks from the decision to re-assess, although the council should complete it as soon as practicable. (para 9.191 & 9.192)

Child out of school

21. The law says councils must make suitable full-time educational provision for children of compulsory school age who are absent from school because of illness, exclusion or otherwise. The provision must be suitable for the child’s age, ability and aptitude, including any special needs. The provision may be part-time where the child’s physical or mental health means full-time education would not be in their best interests. (Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, as amended).
22. Statutory guidance says education should be provided as soon as it is clear the child will be away from school for 15 days or more and should address the needs of the individual child. (Statutory guidance: Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs, 2013).
23. Where a child is not attending school, the council’s education welfare team may assess whether support is needed to facilitate attendance. Where appropriate, the council may consider serving a notice requiring parents to satisfy it that their child is receiving suitable education. If the council is not satisfied, it may issue a School Attendance Order. Councils can prosecute parents who do not comply with a School Attendance Order.
24. Where the child can access education but is not able to attend school, councils can consider whether they should be educated otherwise than at school (EOTAS). This usually involves arranging a bespoke package for the child, such as home tuition or online learning.

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS)

25. CAMHS is a health service for children, and their families, who need support for mental health issues. CAMHS also carry out assessments for conditions such as autism.

What happened

26. Y lives with his parents, Mr and Mrs X. He has an EHC plan, which names school 1, a special school. He attended school 1 from March 2020, after the family moved from another council area. He had 100% attendance at school until he became unwell in April 2021. Mr X said Y could not access education during April 2021 for health reasons, including undergoing hospital tests over a two-week period. When he recovered, in May 2021, Y was too anxious to attend school.
27. This decision statement covers the key events and is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that happened.

Alternative education

28. When Y was not able to return to school 1 in May 2021, school 1 worked with the family to try to assist him to return, including agreeing a reduced timetable and allocating a designated member of staff to support Y. Unfortunately, by early July 2021 Y was still not able to attend even for his favourite sports activity.
29. In the meantime, Mr X contacted the Council’s Education Welfare team, following which an officer spoke to Mrs X. The officer said they were not concerned about the school absence because the family were clearly doing all they could to assist Y to attend. They said they would refer the case to the SEND team.
30. Two days later, Mr X contacted the Council’s SEND team directly to report that Y was out of school and to request a reassessment of his SEN (I will consider the re-assessment separately). The SEND team arranged a meeting with school 1 to discuss how the school could support Y to return.
31. In late May 2021 Mr X emailed again to ask the SEND team to provide a suitable alternative education for Y whilst he was out of school and also asked it to provide the SEN support set out in his EHC plan at home. The Council did not respond.
32. In mid June 2021, Mr X contacted the Council’s Head of Children’s Services, who said they would forward his letter to the SEND team and to the complaints team. At the same time, Mr X made a formal complaint. He said Y had been out of school since 12 April 2021 and the Council had failed to arrange a suitable alternative education for him under section 19 of the Education Act.
33. The Council responded to the complaint on 23 June 2021. It said it had agreed to carry out a re-assessment in late May and had written to relevant professionals seeking advice.
34. Mr X was unhappy with the response and asked the Council to consider the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process. He said Y was entitled to alternative education as he could not attend school for health reasons.
35. The following week Mr X emailed school 1. He said the plan to reintegrate Y back into school through activities he enjoyed was not working. However, he had agreed staff from school 1 would visit Y at home and accompany him on an activity at the school. The staff member would bring a photo of the new teacher for September 2021. School 1 updated the Council.
36. Y saw his GP in early June, who made a referral to CAMHS. He saw the GP again on 24 June but the GP’s letter to the Council was not typed until 3 August, and was sent to the Council the following day. In mid July 2021 Y saw a consultant paediatrician who also made a referral to CAMHS. They told the Council Y was too unwell to attend school and should have home tuition whilst assessments were undertaken.
37. Also, in mid July, the Council’s SEND team explored the possibility of Y attending a farm setting and suggested that Mr and Mrs X arrange for Y to visit the setting. Y attended one two-hour session at the farm but school 1 raised concerns about the provision and particularly about whether staff there had sufficient knowledge and experience to manage Y’s complex needs. As a result, Y did not attend any further sessions there.
38. In late July, the Council responded at stage 2. It did not uphold the complaint. It said:
• Y was on the roll of school 1, which said it could meet his needs and was named in his EHC plan;
• it had agreed to re-assess Y’s SEN; and
• it had not been aware that Y was out of school on health grounds but would now make a referral to assess what alternative education could be provided, pending the completion of the reassessment.
39. In early August the Council received a letter from Y’s GP that said Y was under the care of a paediatrician for episodes of agitation and distress, that the GP believed were “severely interfering with his life at present” and “he would benefit from home schooling”. A few days later, the Council made a referral to the medical pupil referral unit (MPRU) for education either at its site or at home. At that stage, this was envisaged as a short-term intervention whilst the re-assessment was being done, following which a plan would be developed for Y to return to school 1.
40. In early September the Council confirmed it would deliver full-time alternative education by home tuition in the mornings and by sessions at school 1 in the afternoons. It provided a proposed timetable, which included a mix of teaching sessions and activities Y would enjoy.
41. Mr and Mrs X said Y needed more time to prepare for a new routine and that sessions at school 1 were not suitable. In discussions with school 1 a few days later, they explained that Y would not be able to participate in any activities on school 1’s site due to his anxiety. School 1 suggested that when Y was in a routine with home tuition it might be possible to reintroduce activities in school.
42. A teacher from the MPRU met the family in mid-September to discuss home tuition. They agreed that one hour on two mornings would be sufficient to start with and this could be built up over time.
43. In late September, Mr and Mrs X sent the Council proposals for alternative education for Y, including a mix of home tuition and activities Y would enjoy, such as swimming, horse riding and soft play. At that stage, they did not want Y’s name removing from the roll at school 1 but it was later agreed his name would be removed and he would be recorded as educated other than at school (EOTAS). The new arrangement was agreed in November 2021 and fully implemented from January 2022. The EHC plan has not yet been amended to reflect that change.

My findings – alternative education

44. Y was out of school in April 2021 but was too unwell to access education until early May. He was then unable to attend school due to his anxiety. School 1 worked with the family to try to reintegrate Y back into school via a part-time timetable.
45. The Council was not aware Y was out of school until mid-May 2021 when Mr X contacted it. It immediately arranged a meeting with school 1. Although school 1 arranged for home visits by a staff member and hoped to support Y to return to school for some activities, it was clear this was not successful by late June/early July 2021. Given this was close to the end of term, it is unlikely the Council would have been able to arrange alternative provision before the end of the school year.
46. The Council did try to arrange full-time alternative provision to start in September 2021. Mr and Mrs X declined this as they did not consider the afternoon sessions proposed at school 1 were appropriate due to Y’s anxiety. I have seen no specific record setting out the Council’s reasons for proposing sessions on school 1’s site, although the records suggest it was still the intention for Y to return to school 1 at that time.
47. Mr and Mrs X were also concerned about the home tuition in the mornings on the basis Y had got into a new routine since he had been at home and would need time to adjust. It was therefore agreed to provide two hours per week initially. I have seen no record to show how the Council considered what Y could manage and why two hours per week was suitable. I would expect the Council to either provide full-time alternative education or to have a record to explain its reasons for deciding that the part-time provision proposed was a suitable education for Y. The failure to do either of those things was fault.
48. However, whilst I acknowledge Y did not receive a full-time education during the Autumn term, it is unclear whether Y could have managed more formal education than this at that time, and I am aware that some of the provision offered was refused by Y’s parents, who were concerned that the reasons for his anxiety about school had not yet been fully explored. There is, therefore, uncertainty about whether Y suffered an injustice as a result of the fault.
49. An alternative package proposed by Mr and Mrs X was agreed in mid November 2021 and started in early January 2022.

EHC re-assessment

50. School 1 carried out an annual review of Y’s EHC plan in March 2021. Mr X asked the Council to carry out a re-assessment of Y’s SEN because he said Y’s needs had changed, and his plan did not reflect the support he needed. He told me school 1 supported that request.
51. The Council’s view was that the annual review paperwork did not show the need for a re-assessment, although the record, which I have seen, does make it very clear this was what the parents wanted. The Council’s panel considered the request on 21 April 2021 but deferred making a decision as it said it needed additional information from school 1 and Mr and Mrs X.
52. The Council’s panel reconsidered the request for a re-assessment on 24 May 2021. It decided a full re-assessment was not needed. Its decision-making record shows it considered the appropriate action was for school 1 to involve the educational psychologist to explore why Y was refusing to attend school.
53. Following a further discussion between the SEND caseworker and the team manager, the panel’s decision was overturned and on 3 June 2021 the Council confirmed it would carry out a re-assessment. Its email said it would seek advice from school 1, an educational psychologist (EP), Hull Sensory Services and speech and language therapy (SaLT). On 4 June it asked Mr and Mrs X to provide information for the re-assessment by 2 July 2021, including any reports or letters from specialists or health professionals they wanted it to consider. In its complaint response dated 23 June 2021, it confirmed it had written to the school and specified health professionals for advice and said the assessment should be completed by 16 July 2021.
54. The Trust responded to the request for a sensory occupational therapy (OT) report on 25 June 2021. It said it had asked Y’s parents for a recent sensory report that it could use, together with information from them and school 1, as the basis for recommendations. But the parents did not have a recent report. Given the six-week deadline for responding, it advised the Council to obtain a report privately. The Council made a referral for a private report on 29 June but did not receive this until 14 October 2021.
55. On 12 July 2021, Mr and Mrs X asked about a mental health assessment from CAMHS. They said Y was known to CAMHS and was waiting to be assessed. On 5 August 2021, the Council requested advice from CAMHS, which is part of the Trust. It asked the Trust to complete an advice form that it provided. CAMHS replied on 12 August. It said: “sorry this patient is no longer open to the camhs service”.
56. On 4 August 2021, Mr and Mrs X queried why the Council had not asked for a functional OT report. The Council said this was not part of the original request. It requested a report on 25 August 2021. By April 2022, it had not received this and had been unable to get an update about when it will be issued.
57. On 23 September 2021, Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to seek advice for Y’s re-assessment. The Council responded on 5 October 2021. It said:
• it started the re-assessment on 4 June, and initially sought advice from the education psychologist (EP), speech and language therapist (SaLT) and Hull Sensory Service (for a sensory assessment);
• on 12 July, Mr and Mrs X asked about advice from CAMHS. This was requested on 5 August and CAMHS replied on 12 August to say it had no information to share;
• on 4 August, Mr and Mrs X asked about an OT assessment. This was requested on 25 August but had not been received;
• Mr and Mrs X had now asked about a functional OT assessment but because Y was not known to the OT service in the Council’s area, the Council had not been able to obtain advice from them. It explained which professionals could make a referral for an assessment. It also said, with parental consent, it could refer to the Council’s Integrated Physical and Sensory Service (IPASS), who may be able to assist with a functional skills assessment in relation to Y’s ability to access education.
58. Mr and Mrs X were unhappy with the Council’s response and escalated their complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
59. On 22 October 2021, the Council wrote again to CAMHS. It said it was seeking advice for an SEN re-assessment and had previously been told Y had been discharged from the service. It named three doctors who said Y needed an assessment, two of whom had written to CAMHS directly raising their concerns about Y and asking for him to be seen. Medical advice was that Y should receive home tuition until support has been offered by CAMHS. “Until this has happened, and it is confirmed he is well enough to return to school his parents will not send him back”.
60. On 25 October, the Council decided to record Y as EOTAS. At the time it responded to my further enquiries, the Council had not been able to finalise the amended EHC plan to confirm this because it was still awaiting health advice.
61. On 30 November 2021, the Council agreed to obtain a private mental health assessment. At the time the Council responded to my further enquiries it had not received the report, although I understood Y’s parents received this in late April 2022.
62. In its response to my initial enquiries, the Council said:
• there was significant liaison between it and Mr and Mrs X, which is not fully documented, and this would be addressed going forward;
• it acknowledged a delay in understanding Y’s needs and difficulties, and the unexpected increase in the severity of those needs over a very short period of time;
• it was addressing the difficulties in obtaining advice from health bodies for EHC assessments and plans, in light of this complaint. It provided a draft protocol it had shared with heath colleagues for comment, and said it had scheduled meetings to discuss this further with them; and
• there were also significant delays in obtaining private health reports that were considered necessary.

My findings – re-assessment

63. The meeting to review Y’s EHC plan took place on 15 March 2021. The Council was required to issue a decision about whether it would amend, maintain or cease Y’s EHC plan within four weeks of the review meeting, by 12 April 2021.
64. The Council did not issue that decision because Y’s parents had requested a reassessment. It is unclear why the panel was not provided with all the information it needed to make a decision in April 2021, which delayed the decision by a month. It should have decided whether to reassess within 15 days but it took 11 weeks. This was fault.
65. The statutory timeframe for the re-assessment is 14 weeks, which means the Council should have completed the assessment by 10 September 2021. It did not do so.
66. This was partly because it did not request reports from all relevant professionals in June 2021. It made initial requests for advice from health professionals in early June. It made further requests in late June, early August, late August and mid October 2021. If it had discussed the reassessment with Y’s parents, it is likely it could have identified most, if not all, of the advice that would be needed in June 2021. The failure to do so was fault, which contributed to the overall delay in obtaining health advice for the reassessment.
67. The Regulations say NHS bodies must respond to councils’ requests for advice for EHC assessments and plans within six weeks. However, in Y’s case, the Trust needed to carry out a sensory OT assessment, which it could not do within that timeframe. The Council requested a private report without delay, on 28 June 2021, but unfortunately this was not received until 14 October 2021, which was outside the statutory timescales for the re-assessment.
68. CAMHS were also not able to provide advice within the six week timeframe. The Council agreed to request a private assessment in November 2021 but had not received this by mid April 2022.
69. I accept that the Council:
• privately commissioned two reports where it was clear that the Trust could not provide a report within appropriate timescales; and
• appropriately chased providers for the advice requested.
70. Nevertheless, the delays in obtaining health advice contributed to the overall delay in completing the reassessment and finalising an amended EHC plan for Y. The overall delay amounts to eight months at the time of writing and the Council has not yet issued a final amended EHC plan. This amounts to service failure.

Health Trust – CAMHS advice

71. The Council requested advice from CAMHS for Y’s reassessment in early August 2021. CAMHS responded on 12 August 2021 that “this patient is no longer open to the CAMHS service”.
72. In mid October, Y’s parents complained to the Trust that CAMHS had refused an assessment.
73. The following week, the Council made a further request for CAMHS advice for Y’s reassessment. The request stated Y was out of school and would remain out of school until a mental health assessment was completed.
74. In December 2021, the Health Trust responded to the complaint. It said:
• it had not refused to assess Y. Y was on a routine waiting list, which fell outside the timeframe for the EHC reassessment;
• it was clarifying its responsibilities in relation to the SEND Code; and
• acknowledged the lack of a clear process to recognise and respond in a timely way to SEND requests for advice.
75. Mr and Mrs Y were unhappy with the response and the complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process. The Health Trust responded at stage 2 on 18 February 2022. It said:
• CAMHS had not received the initial request for advice sent on 5 August 2021;
• CAMHS and the Learning Disability (LD) service had shared a referral pathway and Y was allocated to the LD service. Y’s parents had misunderstood the role of the two services;
• an assessment was initially refused because the Community Paediatricians were investigating any medical issues but after those investigations were completed, the referral for an assessment was accepted in late October 2021; and
• its legal team had confirmed that although the SEND Code stated professionals should respond to requests for advice within 6 weeks, this could be to confirm the service was involved, and did not require it to complete assessments within that timeframe.
76. In response to my enquiries, the Health Trust accepted:
• it was an error to say in the stage 2 response that it had not received a request for advice dated 5 August 2021, for which it apologised. An administrator had not saved the request or response to the system: this was being addressed with the member of staff concerned;
• it could have included some information on the health advice form, for example, to confirm any diagnoses, although it would not be able to provide detailed information until the CAMHS assessment had been completed; and
• it could have reviewed the further request for an assessment from the paediatrician in September 2021 more quickly, which would have enabled it to provide some heath advice in response to the Council’s second request.
77. The Trust also explained that in light of this complaint it recognised the need for a more standardised response to SEND requests and had identified two priority areas for improvement:
1. a clearer pathway for receiving and responding to EHCP assessment requests. It had changed its process from January 2022 and now all requests are sent to a single team to consider. It was consulting with relevant service leads to provide further clarity to the process. Changes will need to be agreed by the Trust and communicated to the Council; and
2. staff training around the SEND Code. It is currently reviewing its training packages.
78. It said the actions above would support the draft protocol proposed by the Council. This is currently being reviewed by the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and the Council.

Findings – Health Trust – CAMHS advice

79. The Trust accepted it wrongly stated it had not received the first request for advice from the Council. This was because it had not recorded the request from the Council or its response. The failure to keep a proper record was fault. I note the Trust has taken appropriate action to address that issue. It has also agreed to apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the error in its complaint response, which is an appropriate remedy for any injustice caused.
80. The Trust also accepted it could have provided more information, particularly in response to the Council’s second request for advice. The failure to provide advice within 6 weeks of an advice request was contrary to Regulation 8 and was fault.

Back to top

Agreed action

81. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision:
• apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the failure to either provide full-time alternative education in the Autumn term 2021 or provide a record explaining why the part-time provision was suitable, the delay in deciding whether to carry out a reassessment, the failure to identify all the reports that would be needed at an early stage in the reassessment process, and the failure to complete the reassessment within statutory timescales;
• apologise to Y for the impact of those failings;
• pay Mr and Mrs X £500 to remedy the frustration caused by the resulting delays, and their time and trouble pursuing the Council; and
• pay Mr and Mrs X a further £500, for the benefit of Y, as a token to reflect the uncertainty about whether the part-time alternative provision for Y was a suitable alternative education for him in the Autumn term 2021.
82. The Council will, within three months of the date of the final decision:
• review its processes, to ensure that following an annual review it either provides a decision on whether to cease, maintain or amend the EHC plan within statutory timescales, or provides a decision within 15 days on whether to carry out a reassessment, with information about appeal rights. This should include ensuring staff are clear about what information its panel needs to decide whether a reassessment is needed;
• review its approach to EHC assessments and re-assessments to ensure it identifies at the earliest possible stage, which health professionals will need to provide advice so this can be sought without delay; and
• review its approach to arranging alternative education to ensure that either it provides full-time provision or clearly records its reasons for deciding that a part-time timetable will provide a suitable education for the child. The record should include an assessment of how much education the child can manage where the child is too unwell to access full-time education.
83. The Council has prepared a draft protocol to address the issues in obtaining health advice for EHC assessments and has arranged a series of meetings to finalise this. It will:
• provide the Ombudsmen with a detailed timetable of actions within one month of the final decision;
• issue a final draft and provide the Ombudsmen with a copy within nine months; and
• work towards full adoption by all the bodies and provide a report to the Ombudsmen within twelve months.
84. The Trust will, within one month of my final decision, apologise to Mr and Mrs X for the error in its stage 2 response and its failure to provide CAMHS advice for the EHC reassessment within 6 weeks of the request.
85. The Trust will, within three months of the date of the final decision, complete its review of its processes, and associated staff training, to ensure that that it responds substantively to advice requests for EHC assessments within 6 weeks, in line with the Regulations and taking into account the guidance issued by the Council for Disabled Children referred to at paragraph 20 above. It should provide the Ombudsmen with a report on the further changes made as a result of the review.
86. The Trust will cooperate with the Council and other health bodies, as needed, in relation to the protocol mentioned at paragraph 83 above.
87. The Trust will share a copy of the final decision statement and its action plan with the NHS Improvement Monitor and OFSTED.

Back to top

Final decision

88. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy the injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

89. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate support when the family moved into its area in early 2020. We would not usually investigate events more than 12 months before the person complains to us. It is unclear why Mr X did not complain to us sooner and I note that Y’s EHC plan was amended by the previous council to name school 1, Mr X’s preferred school for Y. Although the Council did not arrange what Mr X considers was a proper transition for Y to school 1, he initially settled well and continued to attend school throughout the COVID-19 pandemic until he became unwell in April 2021. Although any lack of support may have contributed to the difficulties that arose later, it is unlikely I can achieve a worthwhile outcome by investigating these concerns now.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman