Summary: Mr C complains that the Council delayed providing Makaton training to staff at his son’s school, which resulted in him missing out on special educational need (SEN) provision for more than a term. I have concluded my investigation on the basis on the basis there were delays in providing Makaton provisions to Mr C’s son. I consider it appropriate for the Council to offer a financial remedy to Mr C.

The complaint

1. The Complainant, to whom I shall refer to as Mr C, says that the Council failed to provide provisions for his son, to whom I shall refer to as D, as set out in his Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’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

4. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint; and
• reviewed and considered information received from the Council; and
• considered the relevant legislation; and
• communicated with Mr C about his complaint.
5. I also sent a draft version of this decision to both parties and invited their comments.

Back to top

What I found

EHC assessments and plans

6. Children with complex needs might need an EHC plan. Councils are the lead agency for carrying out assessments for EHC plans and the statutory duty to ensure special educational provisions in the EHC plan is made available.
7. Section F of the EHC plan details the special educational provision that is required for the child’s needs. The Council has a statutory duty to provide provisions detailed in Section F, and to provide a suitable placement to meet those provisions.

What happened

8. Mr C’s son, D is a child with SEN due to his severe speech and language difficulty, which impacts his ability to communicate. D therefore communicates via facial expressions, sounds, pointing and a range of Makaton signs. Makaton uses a range of signs and symbols to help people communicate.
9. In June 2015, an assessment of D’s special educational needs was completed by the Council, and an EHC plan was issued. Section F of the EHC plan detailed the provisions required, which included Makaton trained staff at D’s school to work with him.
10. In June 2018, the Council started to plan for D’s transition to a new school the following September. In July, the Council tried to arrange Makaton training for staff at D’s new school. However, it was unable to arrange the training due to school staff being on holiday.
11. The Council made further attempts for training to be provided to staff in September or October. However, it was unable to arrange the training due to the available dates being at weekends or half-term.
12. In October, the Council contacted its Hearing Vision & Support Services team with a view to providing Makaton training, or a suitable alternative. The team said they were unable to provide Makaton training but were able to provide training in Signalong, which it considered to be similar to Makaton.
13. Mr C expressed reservations about Signalong, as did D’s Speech and Language Therapist (SaLT). Mr C said that he would prefer Makaton training to be provided by an independent SaLT provider.
14. The Council liaised with the independent SaLT provider, and D’s new school and it arranged training to be provided to school staff for February 2019. This training went ahead, with 4 members of staff receiving training.
15. In February 2019, the Council carried out an annual review of D’s EHC Plan. It recorded that D no longer uses Makaton as his first form of communication, due to improvements in his verbal communication skills.

Analysis

16. Mr C complains about the Councils delays in providing provision detailed in section F of his sons EHC plan.
17. It appears that the Council went to some considerable effort in contacting a range of providers to try to arrange Makaton training at D’s new school.
18. However, the training was not in place until February 2019, some 5 months after D started at the school. The Council therefore failed to meet the provision for Makaton, as detailed in section F of D’s EHC Plan. This is fault.
19. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance sets out the principles we follow in assessing remedy payments for SEN complaints. It explains that, when fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we would usually recommend between £200 - £600 for each month of that loss.
20. This remedy figure is impacted by a number of factors, such as whether additional provision can now remedy the loss of provision and whether the period affected was significant to a child’s schooling (such as the child’s first year of compulsory education, transfer to secondary school or a period when a child may be preparing for exams).
21. I have considered a range of factors when deciding on a suitable remedy. Because D is no longer using Makaton as his primary form of communication, and because D is in primary school, I have concluded that a remedy payment should be offered at the scale at £200 per month.

Agreed action

22. To remedy the injustice, identified in this case, within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Offer to pay Mr C a total of £1000 to use for the benefit of D to remedy him receiving no Makaton provision for five months.

Back to top

Final decision

23. I have concluded my investigation on the basis that there was fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman