Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide his son (Y) with a suitable education and support for his special educational needs when he moved into the area. We found the Council to be at fault. This meant Y was out of education for two terms, affecting Y’s development and well-being, as well as causing Mr X distress and frustration. To remedy this injustice, the Council agreed to apologise and made a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide his son, Y, with a suitable education and support for his special education needs when his family moved from Scotland in November 2024.
2. He also complains about the Council’s failure to contact him about interim provision whilst a school place was identified, despite promising to do so in response to his complaint.
3. This has had a significant negative impact on Y’s well-being. Mr X also suffered financial loss because he was unable to work full time.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant law and guidance

Education Health and Care Plans

9. A child with special educational needs 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.
10. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in their 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

11. Councils must “make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.” (Education Act 1996, section 19(1))
12. The statutory guidance says the duty to provide a suitable education applies “to all children of compulsory school age resident in the council area, whether or not they are on the roll of a school, and whatever type of school they attend”.
13. Suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have. (Education Act 1996, section 19(6))
14. The education provided by the council must be full-time unless the council determines that full-time education would not be in the child’s best interests for reasons of the child’s physical or mental health. (Education Act 1996, section 3A and 3AA)
15. 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’)

What happened

16. 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.
17. Mr X’s son, Y, has special educational needs. Until November 2024, Mr X and Y lived in Scotland. Y had a “co-ordinated support plan (CSP)”. Scotland operates under a different legal framework to England in respect of children with SEN. It is not possible to transfer a CSP to an EHC Plan. Instead, the parent must apply for an EHC Plan once they move to England.
18. In November 2024, Mr X and his family moved to England. Mr X was advised by the Council he should apply for a school place through its usual admissions process. Mr X also applied for an EHC Plan. Mr X’s two preferred schools were unable offer Y a place because of his SEN. In the meantime, Y, remained at home, cared for by his parents. The Council issued a final EHC Plan in early March 2025.
19. Mr X complained to the Council about the Council’s failure to provide Y with a suitable education in February 2025. In response, the Council acknowledged Y had been let down by the incompatible legal systems. The Council committed to contacting Mr X with a view to arranging interim provision. This did not happen, so Mr X complained again. His complaint was upheld and the Council said it would expedite interim support whilst a school place was secured. Again, Mr X says the Council failed to contact him about this.
20. Disappointed and frustrated by this outcome and lack of progress, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman in June 2025.
21. In response to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, the Council:

• explained it had difficultly securing a school place because Y did not have an EHC Plan because he came from a different legal jurisdiction; and
• it planned to restructure relevant teams to ensure children did not fall through gaps in the system in future.

22. A school place was secured for Y, starting in September 2025.

Analysis

23. Y did not attend school or receive any alternative provision from when he moved from Scotland in November 2024 to when a school place was secured for him in September 2025. The Council has already accepted it was at fault for failing to meet its section19 duty by not providing Y with a suitable education.
24. The Council issued a final EHC Plan in early March 2025. By law, when a child has an EHC Plan, the Council has a statutory duty under Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to ensure the provision set out in the EHC Plan is delivered. In failing to arrange alternative education for Y from March 2025, and therefore not delivering any of the provision specified in Y’s EHC Plan, it simultaneously failed to meet its S42 duty.
25. I acknowledge the delay in securing a school place was, in part, due to the incompatibility of the two legal systems that was out of the Council’s control. There is no specific legislation or Government guidance that specifically addresses the circumstances of a child in Y’s position who had an CSP and makes a cross-border move from Scotland to England, and what should happen.
26. However, as soon as it because clear that it may take some time to resolve this issue, the Council should have taken action to address Y’s lack of education and SEN support. Mr X’s two preferred schools said they were unable to offer Y a place in December 2024 because of his high level of SEN. From this point, the Council should have been proactive and arranged alternative provision. The Council failed to do so, despite committing to this during its complaint handling.
27. Mr X says the situation was made worse because the Council failed to communicate with him about both alternative provision and what progress was being made to find a school place for Y. The Council has failed to provide the Ombudsman with any evidence to show it kept in contact with him during this time. This poor communication is further fault.
28. The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies recommends that where we have found fault which has resulted in loss of education, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. In coming to a suitable figure, I considered Y was a child with a high level of SEN and did not receive any education for two terms. For this reason, I consider a remedy payment at the highest sum of £2400 is appropriate. I accept the Council was not obligated to make alternative arrangements during the autumn term because it was not known until mid-December that school place would not be offered through the admission process.
29. I also find Mr X experienced injustice as a result of the Council not providing suitable education for Y. Y spent all of this time at home which impacted on Mr X’s ability to work. Mr X also experienced uncertainty and frustration because of the Council’s failure to honour the commitment made to arrange alternative provision and its poor communications. This injustice requires and additional symbolic payment.

Back to top

Agreed action

30. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise to Ms Y for the injustice caused by the above faults. 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.
2. Pay Mr X £300 to recognise the distress and frustration he experienced as a result of the Council’s poor communication and failure to honor the commitments made during its complaint handling.
3. Pay Mr X £4,800 to recognise the loss of education to Y. This has been calculated as 2 terms of education at £2,400 per term.
31. In a previous decision around delays with EHC Plans, we asked the Council to create an action plan of steps it would take to address these issues. In July 2025, the Council sent this. It had recently fully restructured its SEN team with increased staffing and resources and invested significantly in SEN early years support. This is after the events I considered in this complaint, and this needs time to embed improvements. For this reason, I have not made any further service improvement recommendations.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice to Mr X. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman