Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide a suitable educational placement and special educational needs support for her daughter, Y, since her permanent exclusion from college in April 2024. We found the Council to be at fault because failed to carry out an emergency review, took too long to consult with appropriate potential providers and did not provide any alternative provision for seven months. As a result, Y’s well-being and mental health were affected. To remedy this injustice, as well as the loss of provision, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic payment and remind relevant staff of the need to make prompt alternative arrangements when a placement unexpectedly ends.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to provide a suitable educational placement and special educational needs support for her daughter, Y, since her permanent exclusion in April 2024.
2. She says this has had a significant impact on Y’s well-being and mental health. It also put a strain on the wider family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused 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)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in educational placements unless it relates to special educational needs, when placement is acting on behalf of the council to secure educational provision as set out in Section F of the young person’s Education, Health, and Care Plan.
5. 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.
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs 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

Special educational needs

Education, Health and Care Plans

9. A child or young person with special educational needs (SEN) 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.

Failure to secure provision

10. The council has a duty to secure the specified special educational provision in an EHC Plan for the child or young person (Section 42 Children and Families Act 2014). The courts have said this duty to arrange provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable.

What happened

11. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “Analysis” section of this decision statement.
12. Y is a young person with SEN and an EHC Plan. In September 2023, Y transitioned from school to further, mainstream education (College P). In April 2024, Y was permanently excluded from College P.
13. Mrs X says the Council did not make any suggestions about what would happen next and what options were available.
14. She felt she had no choice but to carry out her own research. Mrs X identified a suitable residential placement at College D, that offered a place to Y from September 2024. A day placement was also available. Both Mrs X and Y wanted the Council to support a residential placement because Y experienced significant distress getting to college.
15. The Council said this would be considered by the Council’s decision-making panel (the Panel) in August 2024. The Panel decided it needed to consult with other providers and so deferred the decision about College D.
16. Disappointed by this further delay, Mrs X contacted her MP. The Council decided to treat it as a formal complaint. Mrs X also expressed concerns about the four settings that were being consulted and provided information to be considered by the Panel
17. In September 2024, the Panel decided a specialist placement was needed, but residential was not. The Council carried out further consultations.

18. The Council agreed to fund a residential placement at College D in January 2025. Y started attending the following month.

The Council’s position

19. In response to Mrs X’s complaint the Council:

• accepted it had failed in its duty to put suitable arrangements in place following Y’s exclusion;
• said it was “not clear” why this had not happened;
• accepted consultations were not carried out in April 2024 when they should have been;
• apologised; and
• said it would take action to ensure a similar situation would not reoccur.

20. Although Mrs X is satisfied with the eventual outcome, she remained concerned the Council had not taken accountability for the injustice caused and felt an apology was an inadequate remedy.
21. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council accepted it acted with fault because it did not provide Y with any suitable provision between April and November 2024. From this time, some alternative support was then available to Y until her placement at College D started in February 2025. It said an emergency review was not held after the exclusion because an annual review had just taken place and College P.
22. At the invitation of the Ombudsman, the Council offered a remedy payment of £3000 to acknowledge approximately two terms of lost provision, and £500 in recognition of the impact this had on Y and her family.

Analysis

23. Where a placement unexpectedly breaks down, as was the case here, we would expect the council to take swift action to ensure continuity of provision and SEN support.
24. Where a vulnerable young person is excluded, the next steps should be informed by an emergency review. The Council’s position appears to be that one did not take place because an annual review had just only recently been held and College P could not be persuaded to reinstate Y’s place.
25. In my view, this was irrelevant, and the Council was at fault for not carrying out a review. An unexpected, serious incident occurred at College P that had a significant, long-term consequences for Y. The nature of the incident was such that it could (and did) affect what alternative placements were available for Y. It also called into question the suitability of a mainstream setting and the type of specialist support that should be provided to Y. These factors should have all been considered at an emergency review. This would have prompted a review of Y’s EHC Plan and better informed the consultation process.
26. Confusingly, in May 2024, the Council sent a standard letter to Mrs X stating the present arrangements were meeting Y’s needs and no changes were to be made to the EHC Plan. This was clearly not the case and evidences the Council’s internal processes were not working effectively.
27. In my view, this failure to carry out a review directly led to the situation being allowed to drift as it did. The Council did not consult with potential providers until August 2024 and a decision was not made that a specialist placement was needed until September 2024, five months after her exclusion. Had the decision about the need for a specialist placement when it should have been, this would have allowed for more targeted and appropriate consultations to take place sooner than they did.
28. There was further fault by the Council because it failed to provide any alternative provision, whilst a permanent placement was being identified. Some part time provision was made available in November 2024, but as Mrs X has explained, Y’s mental health suffered during the many months she was left without any structure of purpose to her life.
29. Overall, I am satisfied the Council acted with fault. While I accept identifying a suitable placement for Y was not straightforward, the Council took too long to make alternative arrangements after Y’s exclusion and took too long to reassess her complex needs and arrange a suitable placement.

Injustice and remedy

30. To the Council’s credit, it has already accepted it acted with fault, and this caused a significant injustice to Y and her family.
31. Y was denied educational provision and additional support set out in her in her EHC Plan for just over two terms. The fact she missed out on this support meant an already vulnerable young person was further disadvantaged.
32. The Ombudsman has published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred.
33. Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational/SEN provision, we normally recommend a remedy payment of between £900 and £2400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The figure is based on the circumstances of each case, to reflect the particular impact on that young person.
34. Given Y’s age, the stage of her education and the support she missed, I consider the Council’s suggested payment of £2000 for the summer term and £1500 for the autumn term is appropriate, taking into account some alternative provision was available from November 2024.
35. I have also included an additional recommendation below to reflect the partial lack of provision for the first month of the spring term until Y started attending College D.
36. When we recommend a payment for distress or time and trouble, we only take account of avoidable distress that is the result of fault by the Council. A remedy payment for distress is usually a moderate sum up to £500. I consider this to be an appropriate amount and is in line with our guidance.

Back to top

Recommended action

37. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, I recommend the Council should take the following action.
1. Apologise in writing to Mrs X and Y.
2. Pay Mrs X £4000, as offered by the Council in response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries.
3. Pay Mrs X £500, to acknowledge the partial loss of provision at the start of the spring term 2025.
4. Provide the Ombudsman with a summary report of the action it has taken, or intends to take, to ensure emergency reviews are carried out when a placement breaks down.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Draft decision

39. I find fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to the Council to remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified and improve its service.

Investigator’s draft decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman