Summary: We uphold Ms X’s complaints. The Council failed to act on information in March 2019 that Ms X’s daughter, Ms Y was absent from school. The Council further failed to follow the legal timescales for completion of her Education Health and Care plan and annual review in April 2021. There was also a delay in issuing an amended plan in 2022 following orders from the SEND Tribunal and a failure to secure the provision in that amended plan. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and a loss of provision. The Council will apologise and make payments described in this statement. It will also take action to improve services.

The complaint

Complaint 1

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. Did not act in line with Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 when it became aware her daughter Ms Y was not attending school
2. Did not follow statutory timescales for completing Ms Y’s (Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan eventually issued in June 2020
3. Issued a draft EHC plan that was not in line with the law
4. Did not complete the process of amending the EHC plan following an annual review
5. Delayed responding to her complaints.
6. Did not secure special educational provision in Ms Y’s final EHC plan of June 2020.

Complaint 2

2. Ms X also complained the Council:
1. Failed to comply with orders from the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) tribunal
2. Failed to secure provision in the April 2022 EHC plan for online tuition, occupational therapy (OT) and speech and language therapy (SALT)
3. Ms X said this caused avoidable distress and a loss of educational provision for Ms Y.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. I have investigated complaints 1(a) to (e) and complaints 2 (a) and (b). I have not investigated complaint 1 (f) because Ms X appealed to the SEND tribunal. Her appeal was against the special educational provision in Section F of the plan and the placement named in Section I. The matters under appeal were connected to the complaint and so the courts have said we have no power to investigate (see paragraph nine).
5. The matters in complaint one took place between March 2019 and June 2020. Ms X complained to us in March 2023 and so complaint one is late (see paragraph seven). I have considered Ms X’s personal circumstances: she is a single parent and has another child with special educational needs, which likely made it more challenging for her to complain on time. The records I have seen indicate Ms X was chasing up council officers regularly, asking for updates and she also complained formally to the Council several times including in September 2019. I do not consider Ms X let matters rest and I consider the complaint is a series of ongoing issues where the events of one flow into the next. The Council has upheld most of the complaints. And there is evidence of continuing delay over the applicable period, which we would generally regard as fault. So I have exercised discretion to investigate from March 2019.
6. Complaint two has only completed the first of the Council’s two-stage corporate complaint procedure. Because the Council has upheld the complaints in its stage one response, it is unreasonable to give it additional time to respond at the second stage. I have taken into account that Ms Y has not received the provision in the 2022 EHC plan and has been out of school since 2018. I consider it unreasonable to expect Ms X and Ms Y to wait any longer for a resolution to their complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

7. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the council 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 council of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
9. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
10. The courts have established that if someone has lodged an appeal to a SEND Tribunal, the Ombudsman cannot investigate any matter which is ‘inextricably linked’ to the matters under appeal. This means that if a person disagrees with the placement named in an EHC plan or with provision in Section F of the plan we cannot seek a remedy for lack of education after the date appeal rights were engaged if linked to the disagreement about the school place named. (R (on the application of ER) v Commissioner for Local Administration (Local Government Ombudsman) [2014] EWCA Civ 1407).
11. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
12. 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)
13. 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

14. I considered the complaint to us, the Council’s responses and documents described in this statement. I discussed the complaint with Ms X
15. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

16. 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 the Section 19 duty.
17. Statutory guidance, “Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs” says if specific medical evidence, such as that provided by a medical consultant, is not quickly available, councils should “consider liaising with other medical professionals, such as the child’s GP, and consider looking at other evidence to ensure minimal delay in arranging appropriate provision for the child”.
18. 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)
19. 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’)
20. 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. The EHC plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about education, or name a different school. Only the tribunal can do this.
21. 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. This means if a council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains responsible. (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)
22. Statutory guidance Special educational needs and disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years (the SEN Code) sets out the process for carrying out EHC assessments and producing EHC plans. The Code is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014. It says:
• the process of assessing needs and developing EHC plans “must be carried out in a timely manner”. Steps must be completed as soon as practicable.
• the whole process from the point when an assessment is requested until the final EHC plan is issued must take no more than 20 weeks (unless certain specific circumstances apply).
23. The procedure for reviewing and amending EHC plans is set out in legislation and in the SEN Code.
24. Within four weeks of a review meeting, a council must notify the child’s parent of its decision to maintain, amend or discontinue the EHC plan. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176)
25. Where a council proposes to amend an EHC plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes within four weeks of the annual review meeting. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194)
26. Following comments from the child’s parent or the young person, if the council decides to continue to make amendments, it must issue the amended EHC plan as soon as practicable and within eight weeks of the date it sent the EHC plan and proposed amendments to the parents. (Section 22(3) SEND Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.196)

What happened

27. Ms Y is autistic. She has emotionally based school avoidance, anxiety, selective mutism, and a rare neuropsychiatric condition. She has had an EHC plan since June 2020. Ms Y has not attended school since December 2018 when she was in year seven. She is currently in year eleven.

Complaint 1

28. Ms X requested an EHC needs assessment for Ms Y in March 2019. Her letter said Ms Y struggled to attend school until December 2018 and was not currently attending.
29. Ms X emailed the SEND caseworker in June and July asking why the Educational Psychologist’s (EP’s) advice was not forthcoming. She said Ms Y had not been in school since 2018.
30. A manager said in an email to Ms X at the start of September that a locum EP would prepare the advice.
31. Ms X complained to the Council at the end of September 2019. She said the Council had not met any of the timescales for seeking advice for the EHC needs assessment or decided whether to issue a plan. She said Ms Y had been out of school since 2018. The Council has not sent me a response to this complaint.
32. The EP’s report was available at the start of October. An officer informed Ms X at the start of November that the decision was to issue an EHC plan.
33. Ms X chased the SEND caseworker for Ms Y’s draft EHC plan in the last week of November.
34. In the first week of January 2020, Ms X chased the SEN caseworker by email. She said the Council should already have sent her a final EHC plan and she did not have a draft plan. An officer responded the following week apologising for the delay.
35. Ms X also wrote to the Council’s Deputy Chief Executive in the first week of January about the delay. She said Ms Y had not been in school since the middle of December 2018. The Deputy Chief Executive apologised for not meeting the timescales and said a draft plan would be sent shortly.
36. The Council issued a draft EHC plan on 23 January. Ms X responded with comments on 10 February. She said Ms Y tried to return to school on a reduced timetable in the Autumn Term, but this failed in December 2019 as Ms Y’s anxiety was too high and she became exhausted. She said Ms Y had been out of school since December 2018. Ms X made some comments about Sections B, F and I of the draft plan. She said she wanted EOTAS (education otherwise than at school) for Ms Y named in section I.
37. In the last week of February 2020, Ms X complained. She said the Council failed to provide alternative education and failed to send a legally compliant draft plan. She said Ms Y had been out of school since December 2018 and her reintegration into school had failed in December 2019. She said the Council had a duty under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996.
38. In March, school referred Ms Y for alternative provision on medical grounds. An email from an occupational therapist (OT) in the mental health team said Ms Y was unwell and rarely leaving her bed. A doctor from the same team confirmed Ms Y’s mental and physical health was poor.
39. An Education Welfare Officer (EWO) contacted Ms X by email in April to discuss on-line learning. The EWO said she was going to discuss Ms Y at a panel meeting in July. Ms X told us nothing else happened regarding Ms Y’s schooling at that time.
40. The Council’s alternative provision panel discussed Ms Y’s case (the referral for provision on medical grounds). The action was to review the case in July. The record said there would be no tuition provided because school was providing on-line support due to COVID-19. In June, the case was closed to the alternative provision panel because Ms Y had an EHC plan and so provision was the responsibility of the SEND team.
41. The Council’s response to the complaint in June said:
• The relevant department was not aware of Ms Y’s absence from school until the complaints team raised it March 2020. It had allocated an Education Welfare Officer who would liaise with school about the provision that could be put in place. School had not told the Council Ms Y was absent. It did not uphold this complaint.
• The Council did an EHC needs assessment and a draft plan should have been available by 19 July 2019 but was not done until 23 January 2020.
• Parents have the right to request changes to a draft plan. The caseworker was making amendments as requested.
• The Council had commissioned locum EPs and recruited extra staff to the SEND service.
42. The Council issued Ms Y’s final EHC plan in June 2020. The final plan named Ms Y’s existing mainstream secondary school in Section I and the provision in Section F was 25 hours of support from a teaching assistant. Section F said support could be used flexibly to support Ms Y’s reintegration into school and for home tuition.
43. Reports from an alternative education provider (AP) show the school referred Ms Y to it in June 2020, a member of staff from the AP carried out a home visit over the school holidays and Y started attending the AP for an animal care course in a small group one day a week in September. The AP’s report indicates Ms Y settled well and attended regularly for the first term. The report noted Ms Y was progressing better than expected and staff did not consider she could manage more hours.
44. Ms X appealed to the SEND Tribunal in September 2020. She appealed against the content of sections B, F and the placement named in section I.
45. A letter from the mental health team to the Council in January 2021 suggested Ms Y was medically unfit to attend school due to her anxiety.
46. A report from the AP noted Ms Y’s attendance dropped in the Spring term of 2021. She was said to be highly anxious and either could not be persuaded to get out of the car or needed a lot of coaxing.
47. There was an annual review meeting of Ms Y’s EHC plan at the end of April 2021. The school sent the papers to the Council in the middle of May recommending amendments to the plan, including to Sections B and I. The annual review report noted Ms Y had not been attending school at all. She had one day a week at the AP and all attempts to broach school, even remotely, had failed. The annual review report went on to propose a change of placement and said Ms Y required specialist provision to meet her health and educational needs.
48. By May 2021, the Tribunal had not yet heard Ms X’s appeal of the June 2020 plan. This was because Ms X asked the Tribunal to suspend the case. The Council lodged a position statement with the Tribunal. This said:
• The parties had agreed to stay the proceedings following a request from Ms X
• In April, it had confirmed with the school that Ms Y was medically unfit to attend.
49. Ms X added her comments to the position statement. She said she had recently spoken with an Education Welfare Officer and explained Ms Y was not well enough to take on any learning, she was getting eight hours a week over two days at the AP and this was all she could manage.
50. In June 2021, the Council received a report from Ms X’s independent EP which said Ms Y was struggling to attend the AP. She had a second session for three hours a week for one-to-one support with a mentor. The independent EP noted the AP staff had said Ms Y could become exhausted following her attendance.
51. Also in June, the AP sent the Council an updated report following the annual review meeting saying Ms Y needed a bespoke education package and was not in a place to return to mainstream school. She was said to be ‘in a phase of regression’.
52. Records from the Council’s medical needs team show school referred Ms Y to the medial needs team in April 2021 for alternative provision on medical grounds. The Council’s alternative provision panel reviewed the case and noted Ms Y continued to attend AP two days a week, Ms X was said to be happy with the provider which the school was funding.
53. In September, Ms X contacted the Tribunal to ask for a stay in proceedings as she and Ms Y were unwell with COVID-19. The Tribunal agreed and its order noted Ms Y was undergoing an assessment for a special school. Ms X told me Ms Y was too unwell to visit the school and so she (Ms X) visited and felt it wasn’t suitable. Records indicate two other special schools that were consulted in summer 2021 declined to offer Ms Y a place).
54. In December 2021, an updated report from the AP noted Ms Y had a good start to the school year and had attended one-to-one baking sessions. Her attendance had declined since October half-term.
55. In February 2022, the mental health team wrote to the Council to say Ms Y was too unwell to attend the AP.
56. Ms X complained to the Council in February 2022. Her complaint was about the failure to issue a decision to maintain, cease or amend the EHC plan following the annual review in April 2021.
57. In February, the parties used the working document process to agree a final EHC plan and on 18 February, the Tribunal ordered the Council to issue a final amended plan within five weeks.
58. The Council issued an amended plan in March 2022. This contained some errors which Ms X raised with the Council and were corrected in a further final amended EHC plan issued on 19 April 2022. The SEN provision in Sections F, the personal budget for education in Section J and the placement in Section I were:
1. A bespoke EOTAS package using Ms Y’s attendance at the AP as a starting point and gradually increase her engagement through activities of interest to he.
2. three hours a week with the existing AP.
3. Online tutoring (Maths and English GCSE) through a national provider (NISAI).
4. SALT (number of sessions is not specified).
5. OT (25 sessions).
6. Some provision, including swimming and gym sessions which was funded by health.
59. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint (see paragraph 56) in the middle of June 2022. It upheld her complaint about not completing the annual review process following the meeting in April 2021. The Council said:
• It had not sent any letters informing her of its decision following the annual review.
• Ms Y’s needs had changed, the outcomes were not appropriate and a change of placement was recommended in the annual review meeting. The EHC plan needed to be amended.
• The school said it could not meet Ms Y’s needs and recommended a bespoke package.
• Had the information and reports of the annual review been acted on, Ms Y would not have been subjected to another year of no support or provision while awaiting the hearing and for the EHC plan to be finalised on 19 April 2022
• From the EHC needs assessment request submitted in March 2019 to the final amended EHC plan following the hearing, the whole process had taken an unacceptable total of three years.
• The draft EHC plan was shared on 23 January 2020 and the final plan on 5 June. It was this plan that the un-actioned annual review in April 2021 was in response to. Timescales had not been kept to throughout. There was no justification for the delays.
60. Ms X escalated her complaint. The Council’s final response in August said:
• She issued an appeal in September 2020, the hearing was put back several times at her request and was set for February 2022.
• There were no grounds for compensation for four years of missed education. The Council would not change the placement until ordered to do so or until the parties reached agreement.

Complaint 2:

61. The Council’s records show the AP provider sent regular updates about Ms Y’s attendance at sessions and described her progress. The Council took over funding this when it issued the EHC plan dated April 2022.
62. The Council’s records indicate it arranged and made available the direct payment/personal budget in around June 2022 and held an annual review meeting in November 2022 where the provision Ms Y had been attending was discussed. The Council made referrals for SALT and OT and Ms Y received a few sessions of SALT, but not OT. The records also indicate the Council did not organise online learning through NISAI despite Ms X chasing relevant officers; one of whom was on sick leave.
63. Ms X complained to the Council in January 2023 about the matters in paragraph two. She said Ms Y had not been receiving all the provision in her EHC plan. The Council responded in March. It upheld her complaints saying:
• Ms Y had not been getting the on-line tutoring specified in the EHC plan of April 2022 as it had not been set up by the Council.
• The delay was due to staff shortages and the Council was sorry for this.
• The panel would meet and then let her know the arrangements.
• Following the Tribunal, a final EHC plan was issued on 10 March 2022, this was incomplete and so a further proposed amended plan was issued and then a final amended plan on 22 April.
• There was a delay in issuing the plan and in putting in place the personal budget.
64. There was a further annual review meeting in March 2023, shortly after Ms X complained to us. The minutes said Ms Y had recently been unwell, had not been attending the AP, and had not been receiving SALT or OT. The minutes went on to say on-line tuition would commence at the end of the month.

Was there fault causing injustice?

The Council did not act in line with Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 when it became aware Ms Y was not attending school.

65. The Council said in a complaint response of March 2020 that it did not know Ms Y was not attending school until 2020. However, Ms X said in her application for an EHC needs assessment in March 2019 that Ms Y had been out of school since December 2018. She repeated this in emails to the SEND caseworker in June and July 2019 and in correspondence to the Council, including a complaint she made at the end of September 2019, which the Council did not respond to. I am satisfied the Council was aware in March 2019 and through subsequent reminders to SEN staff from Ms X, that Ms Y was not attending school. The Council should therefore have liaised with the school to confirm the position with regard to Ms Y’s absence in order to determine whether or not the Section 19 duty applied. The Council should have allocated an EWO to work with Ms Y and her family. It should have considered statutory guidance I have set out in paragraph 17 to seek medical evidence about Ms Y’s fitness to attend school. It should have considered at the time whether it had a duty to put suitable education in place. The failure to do so was fault.
66. Had the Council liaised with the school and relevant health professionals in March 2019, on balance, it would have decided the Section 19 duty applied. The evidence shows Ms Y stopped attending school because of a breakdown, in part due to her anxiety disorder and that a re-integration plan on a part-time timetable was unsuccessful. The failure to follow up information from Ms X about her daughter’s non-attendance caused a loss of suitable education under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 for Ms Y between March 2019 and the first lockdown in March 2020. Schools and other education providers closed between March and July 2020. Provision under Section 19 was not an option for most children and young people during this period (unless they were vulnerable or the children of key workers) and so there was no fault in the failure to arrange a package between March and July 2020.

The Council did not follow statutory timescales for completing Y’s EHC plan issued in June 2020

67. The Council should have issued Ms Y’s final plan within 20 weeks of Ms X’s request on 28 March 2019: by 15 August 2019. It did not do so until June 2020. This was a delay of around 10 months and was fault. It delayed Ms X’s right of appeal to the Tribunal.
68. The final plan named the school and TA support of 25 hours which could be used flexibly, including, but not limited to, home tuition. The evidence shows Y received AP from September 2020 for one day a week and this provision, although not full-time, was all she was able to manage because of her anxiety. I consider this provision is equal to the flexible TA/ home tuition support on the plan. This AP would likely have been available to Ms Y from the Autumn Term of 2019 had the Council acted in line with the statutory timeframes and issued the final plan in August 2019. Schools and other education providers were closed between March and June 2020 and given Ms Y’s anxiety and physical health, I consider it unlikely she would or could have attended AP in this period even if it was available.) So, the loss caused by the delay in issuing the final plan is AP of one day a week between September 2019 and the first lockdown in March 2020.

The Council issued a draft EHC plan that was not in line with the law

69. Provisionally, there was no fault by the Council. A draft plan gives the parent an opportunity to make representations, including suggesting amendments and making corrections. The Council acted in line with the statutory process by issuing a draft plan, sending it to Ms X and giving her time to make representations about amendments.

The Council did not complete the process of amending the EHC plan following an annual review

70. The Council should have issued a decision to cease, maintain or amend within four weeks of the annual review meeting in April 2021. It should have sent a notice of proposed amendments at the same time and finalised the plan within eight weeks of receiving comments from Ms Y. The Council accepted in its complaint response of June 2022 that it failed to complete these actions. This was fault. It caused avoidable distress and a loss of a fresh appeal right. It was also a missed opportunity to resolve the dispute about provision and placement which had led to Ms X appealing the June 2020 plan to the SEND tribunal.

The Council delayed responding to her complaints.

71. Ms X complained at the end of September 2019 about the delay in the EHC needs assessment process. The Council failed to respond, which is fault.
72. Ms X complained in February 2020 and the Council’s stage one response was not until June 2020. This response was delayed which in normal situations would be fault but I have taken into account this was the first national lockdown and so I am not critical of the delay in these circumstances.
73. Ms X made another complaint in February 2022. The Council’s stage one response was in June. This delay was fault which caused avoidable distress and time and trouble. Ms X escalated her complaint in June and the Council responded again in August. The second response was within an acceptable timeframe.

The Council failed to comply with a Tribunal’s order

74. On 18 February 2022, the Tribunal ordered a final EHC plan within five weeks. This should have been done by 25 March. So there was a delay of three weeks because the plan was not issued until 19 April (after Ms X had pointed out errors omissions in a version of the plan issued in March). This was fault causing avoidable inconvenience.

The Council failed to secure provision in the April 2022 EHC plan for online tuition, occupational therapy (OT) and speech and language therapy (SALT)

75. The Council accepted in its complaint response of March 2023 that Ms Y has not been receiving on-line tuition, OT or SALT as specified in the plan. The Council is legally required to secure provision on Ms Y’s EHC plan and this provision was supposed to be commissioned by the Council and not form part of the personal budget funding. Taking over a year to secure provision in an EHC plan was not in line with the duty in Section 42 of the Children and Families Act and was fault, which is continuing at the time of writing this statement. It caused Ms Y a loss of provision when she is in her GCSE year.
76. The Council failed to secure provision in the April 2022 EHC plan for online tuition, occupational therapy (OT) and speech and language therapy (SALT). The period of fault is from 25 March 2022 (the date the plan should have been issued) and continuing as regards OT and SALT. The period of fault for failing to secure online tuition is between 25 March 2022 and 1 April 2023.

Back to top

Agreed action

77. Within one month of my final decision, the Council will:
• Remind relevant officers in the SEND team and those dealing with complaint responses of the need to identify information in complaints and requests for EHC needs assessments that suggests a child is not attending school and to alert the education welfare team of this.
• Share a copy of my final decision and our focus report ‘Out of school…Out of sight’ with the above reminder
• Apologise to Ms X and Ms Y for the avoidable distress, frustration and loss of education provision caused by the fault identified in this statement.
• Pay Ms X £500 to reflect her avoidable distress and time and trouble in making numerous complaints between 2020 and 2023.
• Pay Ms Y:
1. £2700 reflect the lack of alternative education provision between the end of March 2019 and the first lock down in the last week of March 2020. This is at the lower end of our suggested range and reflects the likelihood that Ms Y’s health was poor and on balance would only have been able to access a low amount of provision had this been made available to her.
2. £1200 to reflect the loss of some of the special educational provision on the April 2022 EHC plan (on-line education, SALT and OT).
3. Arrange SALT and OT provision in line with the sessions specified in the EHC plan. Continue to pay Ms Y £100 each month until SALT and OT provision is in place.
78. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

79. We uphold Ms X’s complaints. There was a failure to act on information in March 2019 that her daughter Ms Y was absent from school, a failure to follow the legal timescales for completion of her Education Health and Care plan and a failure to follow the legal timescales for the annual review in April 2021. There was also a delay in issuing an amended plan in 2022 in line with an order from a Tribunal and a failure to secure the provision in that amended plan. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and a loss of provision. The Council will apologise, make payments and take action described in this statement.
80. I completed the investigation.
81. 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

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman