Summary: Mr and Mrs X complain the Council failed to make the provision specified in their daughter’s (Ms X) Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan between July 2016 and February 2018. The Council repeatedly allowed matters to drift and failed to review her EHC Plan during long periods when it knew it was out of date. It also failed to keep proper records. Ms X lost out on the provision she needed and was left frustrated. Mr and Mrs X were also put to considerable time and trouble in having to repeatedly chase the Council. Its poor record keeping made it hard for us to establish the full facts.

Mrs Z complains of similar delays by the Council affecting her daughter, Ms Z. The Council failed to complete an EHC Plan for more than three years. It failed to implement recommendations, took too long to prepare reports and failed to communicate properly with Mrs Z. This caused Ms Z distress and to miss out on education in 2016 and 2017.

Mr Q complains of the same delays affecting his son, Q, when it transferred him from a Statement of Special Educational Needs (SEN) to an EHC Plan. The Council took a year to issue his EHC Plan. It also failed to consider reports or consult some professionals and, as in the other cases, failed to communicate properly with Mr Q. Again, Q missed out on provision he needed. Mr Q had to chase the Council repeatedly and pay privately for an educational psychology report for Q which the Council agreed, but which it failed to arrange in good time.

Finding

The Ombudsman upheld the complaint and found fault causing injustice.

Recommendations

Mr and Mrs X’s complaint

• Within one month of the date of this report, the Council should:
  • Apologise to Ms X and Mr and Mrs X for the failings identified here;
  • Pay Ms X £1,500 for the periods totalling about seven months when its drift and delay led directly to her losing SEN provision, plus £500 for the distress this and the Council’s failure to plan caused her. This makes a total of £2,000; and
  • Pay Mr and Mrs X £250 for their time and trouble in having to repeatedly chase the Council when it failed to act.

Mrs Z’s complaint

• Within one month of the date of this report, the Council should:
  • Apologise to Mr and Mrs Z and to Ms Z for the failings identified here;
  • Pay £500 to Mr and Mrs Z for the time and trouble caused; and
  • Pay £8,600 to Ms Z, made up of £7,600 for the loss of educational provision in 2016 and 2017 and £1,000 for distress.

Mr Q’s complaint

The Council has already apologised for most of the failings identified in Mr Q’s case and offered him £4,400 to reimburse the cost of the educational psychology report. We welcome this.

• However, within one month of the date of this report, the Council should also:
  • Apologise to Mr Q for failing to include his parental feedback in the single assessment and for the anxiety its poor communications caused him; and
  • Pay Mr Q an additional £1,500 for the loss of the SEN provision Q needed for 32 weeks longer than necessary, and £250 for the frustration and anxiety it caused him in chasing matters, making a total of £1,750.

Service improvement

• To prevent a repeat of the faults found in these complaints, with three months of the date of this report, the Council should:
  • Complete an audit of all the children for whom the company appointed to run its SEN provision is responsible, to identify if others have been affected in the same way. If it finds similar issues with delay, or children out of education, or inadequate record-keeping, it should put in place action plans to address these.
  • report back to us within six months on its findings and any actions it needs to take. 

The Council has agreed to these recommendations.

Ombudsman satisfied with Council's response: 30 June 2020

 

Print this page