Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed putting alternative provision arrangements in place when her child Z stopped attending school and did not fully secure the provision in Z’s EHC Plan. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed deciding an application for transport assistance, and about the Council’s communication and complaints handling. We have found the Council at fault. We find Z’s missed education provision is likely to be offset by future provision, mitigating this injustice. However, there is a shortfall in therapy provision yet to be addressed. We also find Mrs X experienced avoidable distress and uncertainty because of the Council’s faults. The Council has agreed to provide a written apology and pay a symbolic financial remedy to recognise Mrs X’s avoidable distress. The Council has also agreed to decide Mrs X’s application for transport assistance and set out a proposal to offset Z’s lost therapy provision over upcoming academic years.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
1. delayed putting in place agreed alternative provision arrangements when Mrs X’s child Z stopped attending school in January 2024 and did not fully secure the special educational provision detailed in Z’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
2. communicated poorly about these matters.
3. delayed deciding an application for transport assistance in this period.
4. delayed responding to complaints.
2. Mrs X said as a result of these faults, Z lost education and therapy provision he was entitled to. Mrs X also experienced avoidable distress, uncertainty and frustration.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. The law says we cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone had a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal, even if they did not use it. 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)
6. 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.
7. 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

What I have and have not investigated

Events prior to January 2024

8. Mrs X complained about a loss of special educational and therapy provision prior to January 2024. This complaint was jointly investigated by the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) and The Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). I have not considered these matters again, though reference some of the same events in this statement for context.

Education and therapy provision in the 2024/25 academic year

9. Some of Mrs X’s complaints to the Ombudsman concerned issues with Z’s education and therapy provision after July 2024. These matters are new events which were not part of Mrs X’s complaint to the Council and so are outside the scope of this investigation. It would be open to Mrs X to make a new complaint about these matters to the Council and then ask the Ombudsman to consider these matters further, if she is dissatisfied with the Council’s response.

Transport complaint

10. Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her application for transport assistance. Mrs X made transport assistance claims for the period between January and July 2024, and for the 2024/25 academic year. I have considered how the Council dealt with the claim for January to July 2024 only. The Ombudsman is separately considering Mrs X’s complaints about the other claims and related matters.

Matters for the SEND Tribunal

11. Paragraphs 5 and 22-25 set out the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate a complaint when a relevant appeal right exists.
12. When the Council issued Z’s amended final EHC Plan in December 2023, it provided Mrs X with the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Mrs X appealed the secondary school setting Z would attend in September 2024. As Mrs X’s appeal concerned the setting Z would attend in September 2024, and not matters related to the current setting or the alternative provision in place between January and July 2024, I consider the Ombudsman is not precluded from investigating this part of Mrs X’s complaint. The appeal was about matters that are separable from Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
15. 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

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans

16. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an 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.
17. 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. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)

Alternative provision

18. Councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils who are out of school because of exclusion, illness or for other reasons, if they would not receive suitable education without such arrangements. The provision generally should be full-time unless it is not in the child’s interests. (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision.
19. The courts have considered the circumstances where the section 19 duty applies. Caselaw has established that a council will have a duty to provide alternative education under section 19 if there is no suitable education available to the child which is “reasonably practicable” for the child to access. The “acid test” is whether educational provision the council has offered is “available and accessible to the child”. (R (on the application of DS) v Wolverhampton City Council 2017)
20. Caselaw provides that if a council has arranged for the provision of education which is suitable for a child and which it is reasonably practicable for the child to enjoy, a council would not be under a duty to provide alternative suitable education because the child is not taking advantage of the existing facility. (G v Westminster City Council [2004] EWCA Civ 45 and DS v Wolverhampton City Council [2017] EWHC 1660). Case law has also held that the duty to make alternative provision does not apply because parents or a child have objections to attending the school. The council has to decide if the education offered is reasonably available and accessible to the child. (R (R) v Kent County Council [2007] EWHC 2135 (Admin))
21. The law does not define full-time education but children with health needs should have provision which is equivalent to the education they would receive in school. If they receive one-to-one tuition, for example, the hours of face-to-face provision could be fewer as the provision is more concentrated. (Statutory guidance, ‘Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs’)

Appeal rights and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction

22. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s:
• description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified in their EHC Plan;
• amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan;
23. 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)
24. 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.
25. We can look at matters that do not have a right of appeal, are not connected to an appeal, or are not a consequence of an appeal. For example: 
• delays in the process before an appeal right started;
• support in an EHC Plan that is not being delivered to the child or young person and we decide the cause is not connected to an appeal that has, or should have, happened; and
• alternative education when the reason the child or young person is not attending education is, in our view, not connected to or is not a consequence of a matter that was, or could have been, part of an appeal to the Tribunal.  

Back to top

What I found

Key events

26. Below is a summary of the relevant key events in this case. It does not detail every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “analysis” section of this decision statement.
27. In March 2023, while he was in Year 5, Z’s school (School 1) held an annual review of Z’s EHC Plan. This resulted in a recommendation to amend Z’s EHC Plan.
28. The Council decided to amend Z’s EHC Plan in July 2023, after it received all the annual review paperwork. It sent the draft amended EHC Plan to Z’s parents in early August 2023. Following this, the Council said it consulted with secondary settings to be named in the Plan from September 2024, and consulted with professionals as part of the drafting process.
29. In October 2023, Mrs X contacted the Council’s special educational needs (SEN) service. She did so because School 1 had told her Z had not received the regular SALT or OT named in his EHC Plan that term, due to a lack of resources. Around the same time, Mrs X also commissioned private assessments for Z, including for autism, SALT, OT and educational psychology. A few days later, the Council, School 1 and Z’s parents met to discuss the problems with Z’s SEN provision. School 1 told the meeting it could not deliver the provision in Z’s EHC Plan. The following day, the Council agreed to find independent SALT catch-up provision for Z. These events were subject to a joint investigation by the Ombudsmen.
30. On 4 December 2023, Mrs X complained to the Council.
31. On 18 December 2023, the Council met with Mrs X. Mrs X had numerous concerns about Z returning to School 1 after the Christmas break. These concerns included how special education and therapy provision would be secured, Z’s health and wellbeing, and social factors affecting Z’s wellbeing and attainment. The Council said Mrs X was worried about Z returning to School 1 without these concerns being addressed.
32. On the same day, Mrs X said she contacted the Council again to follow up on her complaint.
33. In late December 2023, the Council and Mrs X met again. The Council said Mrs X asked the Council to put in place an alternative provision arrangement while it addressed her concerns. However, Mrs X said the Council proposed this arrangement. Mrs X said the Council said it could arrange for 15 hours of tuition per week to be in place from the first week of January 2024. Mrs X said she agreed with this proposal. The Council confirmed it made referrals for tutors to provide provision for Z from January 2024. The Council also said it agreed to commission an independent therapist to provide Z with the speech and language therapy (SALT) provision detailed in his EHC Plan.
34. The Council issued Z’s amended final EHC Plan on 22 December 2023.
35. Mrs X said she told the Council on 22 December 2023 that Z would not return to School 1 until her concerns were addressed. The Council said Mrs X wrote to the Council and School 1 on 2 January 2024 to confirm this. The Council said it met with School 1 on 3 January 2024. It then met with School 1 and Mrs X on 5 January 2024. The Council said at this meeting, it was agreed the interim educational provision arrangements would be in place until the February 2024 half-term, with a view to Z reintegrating back into School 1 after this.
36. On 8 January 2024, the Council wrote to Mrs X and asked her to submit her complaint again, using a specific form. The Council said it would not take further action until Mrs X completed the correct form. Mrs X submitted her complaint again, highlighting it had been more than a month since she made her original complaint.
37. On 6 February 2024, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure.
38. Mrs X said the Council did not put the full promised provision in place until 4 March 2024. Mrs X said this placed a strain on the family. She said they had to keep pressing School 1 and the Council for the help promised. At the same time, Mrs X said they were caring for and supporting Z and Z’s sibling, while also managing work and home commitments.
39. On 7 March 2024, Mrs X wrote to the Council to ask if it would fund tutoring and therapy provision over the school holidays, to offset the provision missed. Mrs X also asked if the Council needed to amend Z’s EHC Plan to reflect the home arrangements in place. On 14 March 2024, the Council said it would not agree to fund any provision over the school holidays. It said the provision now in place was more than the standard full-time equivalent for alternative provision. It also said the home education arrangements were temporary, so there was no need to amend Z’s EHC Plan.
40. On 20 March 2024, Mrs X asked the Council to reconsider its position:
• Mrs X said it was the Council that first suggested alternative provision arrangements and said it could provide 15 hours of tuition a week from the first week of January 2024. Mrs X said the full 15 hours did not materialise until March 2024.
• Mrs X said the arrangements in place were not standard alternative provision arrangements. Mrs X described the arrangements as emergency provision, needed because the Council could not provide Z with a school that could meet his needs and keep him safe.
• Mrs X said there was a significant shortfall between what the Council had promised and what was delivered. Mrs X said they were seeking for some of this shortfall to be made up, which would include making some provision available over the holidays.
41. On 26 March 2024, the Council wrote to Mrs X:
• Having considered a recent update from School 1, the Council said it believed School 1 was suitable for Z and full-time education provision was available for him there.
• The Council said it had developed the package of educational support as a temporary measure, until Mrs X’s concerns were addressed. It said it would normally now expect Z to resume attending School 1. Given Z was shortly due to transition to secondary education, the Council said it would consider continuing with the alternative arrangements in place as an exceptional measure. This was because Z might struggle returning to School 1 for one term only.
• The Council asked Mrs X to confirm if she wanted the package to continue as soon as possible, as this arrangement would need to be approved.
• The Council also said the provision then in place was more than the full-time equivalent for a child receiving alternative provision. The Council said it would not increase the provision further, or consider provision over the holidays. The Council said it would hold a review of Z’s EHC Plan in the summer term, ahead of the transition to secondary school.
42. Mrs X responded on the same day:
• Mrs X highlighted why she believed the school was unsuitable. These reasons included comments from the Headteacher, educational psychologist reports, and feedback from the NHS.
• Mrs X emphasised the alternative provision arrangement had been the Council’s suggestion, which they as parents had agreed to. Mrs X said they were not asking for an increase in Z’s provision, but were asking the Council to provide what had been promised. Mrs X said they were in fact asking for less than had been promised, but they had to ask because the Council had been unable to put in place the provision agreed. Mrs X said they wanted the package to continue and asked the Council to reconsider its position.
43. In a series of further emails, Mrs X expressed distress at the Council suggesting the alternative provision package needed to be re-approved. The Council then agreed it would continue with the arrangements in place. Mrs X said she did not understand why the family were put to the distress of thinking the arrangement could stop. She asked the Council to confirm it would agree to deliver a reduced amount of catch-up provision over the holidays for Z.
44. In April 2024, the Council and Mrs X exchanged further emails. The Council said it would not agree to any provision over the holidays. The Council said it had not meant to cause Mrs X distress when discussing whether the package could continue. It said it did not offer provision over the school holidays and said if any catch-up provision was needed, this would be delivered in term-time.
45. On 24 April 2024, Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. Around the same time, Mrs X sought a meeting with the Council to discuss Z’s provision and any possible catch-up provision. This meeting was arranged for 12 June 2024.
46. On 10 June 2024, the Council wrote to Mrs X to cancel the meeting. The Council said it thought it would be best to await the stage two complaint response. The Council said if it was found to be at fault, it would meet with Mrs X to discuss next steps. The Council said it would contact Mrs X after it sent the complaint response. Mrs X responded, expressing frustration the Council had cancelled a meeting that had taken a long time to arrange. Mrs X sought a date for the meeting.
47. On 17 June 2024, the Council responded to Mrs X’s stage two complaint. I have expanded on the relevant sections in the “analysis” section of this statement.
48. In July 2024, Mrs X asked about claiming a petrol allowance for the period between January and July 2024, for costs incurred driving Z to alternative provision settings. The Council said Mrs X sought a response from the Council eight times between August and October 2024. In November 2024, the Council sent Mrs X a transport expenses form. The Council said Mrs X returned this form on 17 November 2024.
49. The Council said Mrs X asked the Council for an update a further four times between November 2024 and February 2025. Mrs X then complained to the Council. The Council provided its final complaint response in April 2025. I have expanded on this in the “analysis” section of this statement.

Analysis

Did the Council act with fault?

Education and therapy provision

50. There are different accounts of how Z’s alternative provision arrangements were agreed. The Council said Mrs X asked for this arrangement. Mrs X said the Council proposed these arrangements in response to Mrs X’s concerns about School 1 and the family felt there was no alternative but to accept.
51. I understand the initial intention was for Z to return to school after the February 2024 half-term. There is a consensus the arrangements were intended to be short-term, with the proposed provision being in place from January 2024. The short-term nature of the proposed arrangements, with a view to Z returning to the school, suggests these measures were part of a reintegration plan for Z. I have seen no evidence the Council accepted it owed Z a section 19 duty.
52. All parties accept the proposed arrangements were not fully in place until March 2024. The Council said this was due to a delay in identifying a suitable tutor. Irrespective of whether the Council accepted a section 19 duty, the agreed-upon provision was not in place at the correct time, leading to Z receiving partial provision in January and February 2024. I have found the Council at fault for this.
53. By 4 March 2024, the proposed arrangements were fully in place. The Council then told Mrs X it believed School 1 was suitable and Z had full-time education available there. In doing so, the Council considered its section 19 duty and decided it did not apply. Given this decision, the Council was not obliged to continue with the arrangements in place. However, the Council agreed to continue with the alternative provision arrangement to minimise any further disruption to Z.
54. Paragraph 17 sets out the Council’s absolute duty to secure the special educational provision detailed in Section F of Z’s EHC Plan. This duty applies irrespective of whether the Council accepted a duty under section 19.
55. The Council issued Z’s EHC Plan in December 2023. The EHC Plan said Z would receive two hours of SALT per week: one 45-minute one-to-one session with a speech and language therapist, plus five 15-minute sessions, one each day. There were around 24 weeks in the academic year between January and July 2024, excluding half-terms and holidays. This means Z should have received 48 hours of SALT provision in the two academic terms between January and July 2024.
56. Both Mrs X and the Council agree there was a shortfall in this provision, but disagree as to the extent:
• The Council arranged a speech and language therapist to deliver Z’s one-to-one sessions and said the tutors in place were delivering the 15-minute sessions as part of their tuition. The Council said across the two academic terms, there was a shortfall of two hours and 15 minutes.
• Mrs X said the one-to-one sessions, while in place, were short, lasting 30 minutes instead of 45. She also said the tutors did not deliver the 15-minute sessions. Mrs X said the tutors confirmed they were unaware of this and had not delivered these sessions, as they were not provided with, or trained on, Z’s SALT programme. Mrs X said the shortfall across the two academic terms was 28.5 hours.
57. Mrs X’s calculation is partly based on the assertion the Council delayed completing Z’s annual review until October 2024, when it should have reviewed the EHC Plan earlier in the year. This is because Z was due to transfer from primary to secondary education. The law says where this is the case the review and any amendments must be completed by 15 February in the calendar year in which a child is due to transfer between school phases. As part of the review, the Council obtained an updated SALT report, in July 2024, which recommended an increase in Z’s SALT provision. Mrs X said if the Council held Z’s annual review sooner, this increase would have been agreed from the February half-term.
58. The Ombudsman’s view is we cannot say an EHC review would have reached the same conclusions had it taken place weeks or months earlier. This is because the review and assessment procedures take account of the latest evidence relating to the child’s circumstances, rather than looking at the situation at the point at which an amended EHC Plan should have been issued. The Council’s legal duty is to secure the provision in the EHC Plan then in force. This being the case, I consider the Council’s duty was to secure the provision set out in the EHC Plan issued in December 2023.
59. On the balance of probabilities, I believe Z did not receive the 15-minute SALT sessions set out in the EHC Plan between January 2024 and July 2024. This is based on the tutor’s comments to Mrs X. Further, I believe Mrs X’s records setting out what SALT provision Z received in this period are credible. Therefore, I believe Z received 32.5 hours of SALT provision, against the 48 hours required by his EHC Plan for the same period. This is a shortfall of 15.5 hours. I have found the Council at fault for this shortfall.
60. The Council was not at fault when it declined to arrange alternative provision over the school holidays, instead stating any required catch-up provision could be delivered during term time. I recognise Mrs X strongly disagrees with this, though there is no requirement for councils to secure provision during school holidays, and the Ombudsman could not compel the Council to reach a different decision.

Transport costs

61. In its final complaint response from April 2025, the Council upheld Mrs X’s complaint, noting it had not responded to her request despite Mrs X submitting a transport expense form. The Council said it had communicated poorly. I agree with the Council’s own finding of fault.
62. When it responded to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council said it was not clear whether Mrs X was eligible for transport assistance. The Council said there was no statutory duty to provide school transport to alternative provision settings, or to meet travel costs to these settings. However, it said its transport team would consider applications on a case-by-case basis. The Council said it would contact Mrs X within two weeks and discuss her eligibility to make a claim.
63. I asked the Council for a copy of its decision. The Council said it spoke with Mrs X and explained it had not paid any costs because Mrs X did not make an application. The Council told the Ombudsman it had not made any decision about Mrs X’s eligibility, because it still had not received an application.
64. I note the Council’s position. However, in November 2024 Mrs X filed a transport expense request form for January to July 2024, making clear the nature of her request. Given the delays and communication faults the Council identified, I believe the Council should have considered Mrs X’s request as part of its complaints procedure, but it did not do so. In any event, the Council should have expedited its consideration of Mrs X’s request after issuing the complaint response, given it identified this as an action, rather than deferring its decision until Mrs X applied in a specific way.
65. I have found the Council at fault for its continued delay in considering Mrs X’s request for transport assistance and the delay in providing a clear decision.

Communication and complaint handling

66. The Council identified complaint handling failures and communication failures across its two final complaint responses. These related to the delay in accepting and responding to Mrs X’s complaint in late 2023, and communication failures around Mrs X’s transport assistance request. I agree with the Council’s findings and consider this is fault.
67. Mrs X complained about the Council’s communication when it suggested the alternative provision package needed authorisation to continue. Mrs X said the timing and content of this email, suggesting the arrangements may not continue two days before the Easter break, just when the provision was fully in place, caused avoidable distress and uncertainty.
68. In its complaint response, the Council accepted the timing of its communication was stressful. It said it had provided an apology and an explanation for its communication at the time. It said it had wanted to ensure Mrs X wished to continue with the alternative provision arrangements, given the difficulty of balancing work and family commitments.
69. I have considered the Council’s communication. I believe it could have been more effectively handled. For example, Mrs X made clear she wanted to continue with the package after the Council’s first email, but the Council continued to ask the same question. There was some avoidable duplication and the matter could have been resolved sooner.

Did the Council’s faults cause an injustice?

70. The Council accepted a delay in arranging Z’s tutoring. This means Z did not receive the full agreed tutoring provision for two months, in January and February 2024. The Council also agreed in principle there was a shortfall in SALT provision between January and July 2024. These are injustices to Z.
71. The Council noted Z still received some provision in January and February 2024. The Council also said the provision in place after March 2024 totalled more than 30 hours per week, which was more than the number of hours usually considered full-time alternative provision when delivered one-on-one. The Council said while Z missed some provision in the beginning, the level of provision in place from March 2024 onwards would offset this loss over time.
72. The Council’s position is consistent with the principles of the guidance set out in paragraph 21. Z did receive some provision during this period and it is likely, on the balance of probabilities, that the losses Z incurred in January and February 2024 would be offset by the increased provision from March 2024 and future provision in Z’s remaining academic career. This mitigates the injustice relating to education provision.
73. The agreed tutoring arrangements not being in place in January and February 2024 did however cause Mrs X avoidable distress and frustration, with Mrs X having to balance competing commitments at short notice due to this. I have recommended the Council act to recognise this injustice.
74. Further, I would note the Council included the SALT provision in its calculations. As above, there was likely a larger shortfall in this provision than the Council accounted for. This shortfall in SALT provision at a key point in Z’s academic career would have a tangible impact that has not been addressed. As far as I understand, there is no agreed arrangement to offset this specific loss of therapy provision. I have recommended the Council act to address this injustice.
75. On the Council’s communication about continuing the alternative provision package, the Council said it apologised and provided an explanation. Though the Council stated it did not mean to cause Mrs X distress, it did not clearly apologise in the correspondence I have seen.
76. Mrs X remains without a clear decision on her application for transport costs incurred between January and July 2024. This continuing lack of response has caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty. I have recommended the Council act to address this.
77. On the Council’s communication and complaints handling failures, the Council paid remedies of £100 and £250 across the two final complaint responses issued in June 2024 and April 2025 to recognise the injustice that falls within the scope of this investigation. I believe these financial remedies were appropriate and I have not made any further recommendations on these points.

Back to top

Action

78. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Mrs X and Z for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our published Guidance on Remedies.
2. Consider and determine Mrs X’s application for transport costs for the period between January 2024 and July 2024. The Council should invite any further information Mrs X may wish to provide about this and provide a written decision, including details of any rights of review or appeal.
3. Pay Mrs X £250 to recognise the avoidable distress caused by the delay in fully securing the tutoring arrangements in January and February 2024. This is in addition to the payments already noted in paragraph 77, which the Council should also ensure it has paid if it has not already done so.
79. Within six weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Set out a proposal to offset Z’s loss of SALT therapy, to include not less than 15.5 additional hours of SALT therapy provision, over upcoming academic years. The Council should have regard to any feedback Mrs X may make about the schedule and Z’s capacity to engage with additional sessions when it makes its proposal.
80. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

81. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman