Summary: the Council took too long to issue G’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It failed to ensure the support required by her plan was provided. The Council failed to assess G’s needs and consider alternative education when G was unable to attend school due to anxiety. The Council relied on G’s schools when it should have made alternative arrangements itself. It took too long to reassess her needs and amend her plan following her autism diagnosis in April 2019. The Council was unable to provide a special school place until September 2020. As a result, there has been considerable disruption to G’s education over a period of at least two years. There has been a lack of joined-up approach from the Council, and Mr and Mrs X have been left to deal with an incredibly complicated situation themselves.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complain about their daughter G’s education. They complain the Council took too long to issue G’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. They complain G did not receive the provision specified in her Plan. G has missed a considerable amount of school because of anxiety. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council did not make alternative arrangements for G’s education and they were threatened with prosecution. They are also unhappy with arrangements for G’s transfer to a special school.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. SEND is a tribunal that considers special educational needs. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (‘SEND’))
5. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
6. 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

7. I have considered:
• information provided by Mr and Mrs X;
• information provided by the Council, including its response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint.
8. I invited Mr and Mrs X and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

9. Mr and Mrs X’s daughter, G, is 9. She has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan maintained by the Council. G has social, communication and interaction needs.
10. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council to assess G’s special educational needs on 29 September 2017. The Council issued an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan on 4 June 2018. The Plan said G would continue to attend a mainstream infant school.
11. In July 2018, Mr and Mrs X asked the Council to hold an emergency review of G’s EHC Plan. They were concerned G was not getting the support she needed at school.
12. Mr and Mrs X say things went rapidly downhill for G from September 2018. She suffered increasing anxiety, and her attendance at school declined.
13. In Spring 2019, Mr and Mrs X and the school agreed a part-time timetable in an attempt to increase G’s attendance. Regrettably, this was unsuccessful.
14. On 15 February 2019, the Council issued an amended EHC Plan in anticipation of G’s transfer to junior school the following September. The Plan said G would attend a mainstream junior school.
15. In April 2019, G received a diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Condition (ASC).
16. On 7 May 2019, Mr and Mrs X decided to withdraw G from school. They wrote to the school to explain their intention to arrange G’s education themselves and asked for her name to be removed from the roll.
17. In September 2019, G started at a mainstream junior school. After a positive start, G suffered increasing anxiety and her attendance at school declined.
18. In October 2019, the Council held a review of G’s EHC Plan and decided she should attend a special school. G was referred to the Council’s placement panel to identify a suitable school place.
19. In the meantime, the junior school referred G to the Council’s medical needs team. The Council arranged alternative education for G which began on 12 December.
20. In February 2020, the placement panel allocated G a place at a special school from September 2020. Mr and Mrs X cancelled the alternative education and decided to educate G themselves until she could start at the special school.

Education, Health and Care Plans: the law

21. A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. An EHC Plan describes the child’s special educational needs and the provision required to meet them.
22. The procedure for assessing a child’s special educational needs and issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan is set out in regulations and Government guidance.
23. A Plan should name the school, or type of school, the child will attend. Councils must consult with schools before naming them in a child’s Plan.
24. The law says that Councils must name a parent’s preferred school in their child’s Plan, so long as the school is suitable and the child’s attendance would not be an inefficient use of resources. (Children and Families Act 2014, section 39)
25. The Council must complete the process and issue a Plan within 20 weeks.
26. Parents have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal if they disagree with the special educational provision or the school named in their child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
27. Once the Council has issued a Plan, it must secure the special educational provision specified in the Plan for the child or young person. (Children and Families Act 2014, section 42)
28. The Courts have made it clear the Council’s duty to arrange provision is owed personally to the child and cannot be delegated. (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62)
29. We recommend councils check the provision is in place and record they have done so at least:
• when they issue a new or significantly amended Plan;
• at statutory reviews; and
• when concerns are raised that provision is not in place.
30. The Ombudsman’s role is to check the Council followed the relevant law, regulations and guidance when considering requests for, and issuing, Plans, and arranged for provision to be made. We cannot make decisions about a child’s special educational needs or the school they attend. Only the Tribunal can do this.

Education for children with health needs

31. 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))
32. Suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs she may have. (Education Act 1996, section 19(6))
33. The Council must consider the individual circumstances of each particular child and be able to demonstrate how it made its decision.
34. 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)
35. We have issued guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to provide education for children who, for whatever reason, do not attend school full-time. (Out of school… out of mind? How councils can do more to give children out of school a good education, published in 2016)
36. We made six recommendations. Councils should:
• consider the individual circumstances of each case and be aware that a council may need to act whatever the reason for absence (with the exception of minor issues that schools deal with on a day-to-day basis) – even when a child is on a school roll;
• consult all the professionals involved in a child's education and welfare, taking account of the evidence in coming to decisions;
• decide, based on all the evidence, whether to require attendance at school or provide the child with suitable alternative education;
• keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing it if a child's capacity to learn increases;
• adopt a strategic and planned approach to reintegrating children into mainstream education where they are able to do so; and
• put whatever action is chosen into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.
37. The Ombudsman’s role is to check councils carry out their duties properly and provide suitable education for children who would not otherwise receive it. We have no powers to consider the actions of schools.

Complaint: Delay issuing G’s EHC Plan

38. Mr and Mrs X complain the Council took too long to issue G’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. They asked the Council to undertake an education, health and care needs assessment on 29 September 2017. The Council agreed and issued G’s final EHC Plan 35 weeks later on 4 June 2018.
39. Regulations say the Council must issue a plan as soon as practicable, and in any event within 20 weeks of receiving a request to assess a child. There are limited circumstances in which a Council does not need to meet this deadline, but they do not apply in this case.
40. Delay by the Council issuing G’s EHC Plan was fault. When the Council responded to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint, it recognised it had taken too long to issue G’s Plan and apologised.
41. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained where the delay arose.
42. The Council agreed to carry out an EHC needs assessment on 20 October 2017, two and a half weeks ahead of the statutory timescale.
43. The Council then requested advice from the Speech and Language Service, an Educational Psychologist and G’s school. Regulations say they should provide their advice within six weeks. The Speech and Language Service carried out an assessment and provided a report within six weeks. The Educational Psychologist carried out an assessment and provided a report within 15 weeks. Despite numerous requests from the Council, the school did not provide a report.
44. The Council explained its Educational Psychology Service has seen a significant rise in demand for assessments and was also experiencing staff shortages. There is a national shortage of Educational Psychologists, so the Council has a partnership with a University to train its own, although the training takes three years. The Council has also commissioned private providers, but has been unable to keep up with demand.
45. The Council took appropriate steps to obtain advice from the school. It is not the Council’s fault the school did not respond. The Ombudsman has no powers to investigate the school’s failure to provide advice.
46. On receipt of the advice from the Educational Psychology Service, the Council decided G needed an EHC Plan. It issued a draft plan eight weeks later, on 5 April 2018. Following comments from Mr and Mrs X, and in response to their request for a personal budget, the Council issued a second draft plan on 31 May 2018. The Council issued the final Plan on 4 June following confirmation from Mr and Mrs X they agreed with the Plan.

Finding

47. Almost half the delay in issuing G’s EHC Plan was the result of the lack of capacity in the Council’s Educational Psychology Service. This delay is fault. We call this a ‘service failure’. The remaining delay was the result of the Council working with Mr and Mrs X to produce a Plan they agreed with. I do not consider this to be fault in this case. Had the Council not worked to secure Mr and Mrs X’s agreement with the Plan, they might have decided to appeal to the Tribunal and this would have taken much longer.
48. Taking all of these factors into account, I find the Council is at fault for taking too long to issue G’s EHC Plan. I am satisfied the Council is taking appropriate action to address the problems caused by the lack of capacity in the Educational Psychology Service. Nevertheless, G’s Plan was delayed by 9 weeks as a result. This delay is an injustice.

Complaint: The provision in G’s Plan

49. Mr and Mrs X complain G did not receive the special educational provision specified in her Plan while a pupil at the infant school.
50. The Council says Mr and Mrs X requested a review of G’s EHC Plan in July 2018, six weeks after it was issued. The school held a review meeting for the Council and reported on the provision made to deliver G’s EHC Plan. The Council says it was satisfied the school was making appropriate arrangements for G’s SEN.
51. However, an internal email from the school’s special educational needs coordinator (SENCO) to the head teacher in November 2018 says the school was not providing special educational provision required by G’s EHC Plan.
52. Mrs X contacted the Council in November 2018 to ask for help because the school was not delivering the provision and had ignored her complaints. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council in December. The Council responded in January 2019 to say the school had confirmed the provision will now take place and noted that Mrs X was waiting for details. The Council advised Mrs X how to complain to the school if she was unhappy with its actions.

Finding

53. Councils are responsible for ensuring pupils receive the special educational provision set out in their EHC Plans. The Courts have made it clear the Council’s duty to arrange provision is owed personally to the child and cannot be delegated. The Council should have procedures in place to ensure schools deliver all the provision required by a child’s Plan.
54. G did not receive all the provision in her EHC Plan while a pupil at infant school, as the email from the SENCO shows. The Council does not appear to have had adequate procedures in place to check the provision was made when G’s Plan was first issued, at the July 2018 emergency review or when Mrs X complained in November 2018.
55. The Council’s advice to Mrs X to complain to the school was wrong. The Council should have ensured G received all the provision in her plan. Its failure to do so is fault.
56. Fault by the Council caused Mr and Mrs X and G injustice. Mrs X went to unnecessary time and trouble in her efforts to ensure G received the support in her EHC Plan. G has missed out on support. It is difficult to say exactly how much, or what effect this had on her education. From the evidence available, it appears G missed out on significant support for more than a term, and this had a significant effect on her education.
57. I note OFSTED identified serious weaknesses in the school in March 2018 and the school closed in November 2018 and re-opened as an academy. This may have had an impact on G’s experience at school. It is not, however, something I can consider. The Ombudsman has no power to consider complaints about the school.

Complaint: G’s absence from school

58. G has missed a considerable amount of school because of anxiety.
59. Parents have a duty to ensure their children receive a suitable, full-time education. Most do this by sending their children to school.
60. Councils must make arrangements for a child’s education if the child would not otherwise receive suitable education. This may be the case if the child is on roll at a school but unable to attend due to illness, for example. When problems arise, councils need some way to assess a child’s needs and make decisions in order to decide whether they have a duty to arrange a child’s education.
61. Councils may also take legal action against parents if they believe a child fails to attend school regularly without good reason.

The 2017/2018 school year

62. In the 2017/2018 school year, the school referred Mr and Mrs X to the attendance team on two occasions. Schools refer cases to the attendance team when they are considering prosecuting parents for their child’s unauthorised absence. This is because only the Council, not the school, can bring a prosecution. Mr and Mrs X described the threat of prosecution as stressful, hurtful and unhelpful as they were struggling to manage G’s anxiety. I cannot consider the actions of the school in making the referrals. I can only investigate the actions of the Council.
63. The Council met with Mr and Mrs X in October 2017 to discuss G’s attendance at school. The minutes show they agreed a plan to increase G’s attendance. From the evidence, it appears the plan had some short-term success.
64. There is no fault in how the Council addressed G’s attendance in the 2017/2018 school year.

The 2018/2019 school year

65. Following an OFSTED inspection that identified serious problems, G’s school closed in November 2018 and re-opened as an Academy. Councils have no control over academies, but remain responsible for the education of children who are unable to attend school.
66. The Council says the next it knew of any problems with G’s education was in March 2019 when the school made a medical needs referral to the Council. G was attending school part-time, and the school had commissioned reports from an Occupational Therapist and Educational Psychologist.
67. The Council says the medical needs service telephoned Mrs X to offer support, but she was happy with the part-time timetable and hopeful that G would return to full-time attendance.
68. Mrs X contacted the Council again at the beginning of April 2019. She was unhappy the school was recording G’s absences as “unauthorised” and concerned this would lead to further threats of prosecution. Mrs X complained the school was not sending work home when G was unable to attend.
69. The Council explained the attendance team was not involved. The Council offered advice and explained the school should be following a protocol for managing pupil absence as a result of health concerns.
70. An officer from the Council’s attendance service telephoned Mrs X on 3 April. The note of the telephone conversation says Mrs X seemed confused about what action was being taken to support G. The officer agreed to contact the school to find out what action the school was taking.
71. Mrs X emailed the school and the Council on 1 May 2019 to say that G was not attending school due to severe anxiety. She asked for help. She said she believed the medical needs service could not help because G’s doctor would not declare her unfit for school. She asked whether it would be possible for G to receive tuition at the junior school she was due to join in September.
72. The Council explored the possibility of tuition at the junior school, but this proved to be impractical.
73. On 7 May 2019, Mr and Mrs X asked for G to be removed from the school roll and said they would educate her at home until she started junior school in September.

Consideration

74. G missed a lot of school. It appears her anxiety increased significantly in the first three months of 2019. She was following a part-time timetable at the beginning of March 2019, and not attending school at all by the beginning of May.
75. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it offered medical needs tuition (tuition provided by the Council for children unable to attend school due to illness) on 27 March 2019 but Mrs X declined.
76. I have not seen evidence to show what the Council offered by way of medical needs tuition or how the Council considered G’s needs on 27 March 2019. And while Mrs X may have been hopeful the part-time timetable would lead to G’s return to full-time education at the end of March, things had clearly not improved in April 2019. The Council’s records describe Mrs X’s confusion about the support available, and her belief that G was not eligible for medical needs tuition, but the Council does not appear to have explained its duties and the support that should have been available.

Finding

77. Councils are responsible for the education of children who are unable to attend school due to illness. When problems arise, councils need some way to assess a child’s needs and decide whether they have a duty to arrange a child’s education.
78. The Council appears to have relied on the school to make alternative arrangements for G’s education and referrals for support.
79. It is entirely a matter for the Council to decide how to organise its services. Our role is to check that whatever arrangements the Council has made enabled it to fulfil its duties and respond appropriately when problems arose with G’s education.
80. Although the Council may make arrangements with schools to carry out its statutory duties, the Council remains responsible if things go wrong. It is important, therefore, the Council maintains oversight and has processes in place to react when problems arise.
81. G was not receiving suitable, full-time education at school. The Council was, therefore, responsible for arranging suitable alternative education. The Council has not provided any evidence to show it assessed G’s needs or considered alternative education. The Council’s arrangements with the school failed to meet G’s needs. This is fault.
82. Fault by the Council has caused Mr and Mrs X and G injustice. The Council should have assessed G’s needs and arranged suitable alternative education for her in April 2019. Had it done so, Mr and Mrs X might not have withdrawn G from school.

The 2019/2020 school year

83. G started at a junior school in September 2019, although her anxiety soon had a significant impact on her attendance.
84. In early October 2019, the Council held a review of G’s EHC Plan. G had only attended for 9 days since the beginning of the term. The review found G’s school was unable to meet her needs despite “numerous professional interventions and support.” The review recommends G attend a special school for children with ASC.
85. On 28 October 2019, Mrs X telephoned the Council to ask for medical needs tuition as G was no longer attending school. The Council told Mrs X the school should provide support, and advised the school to make a referral to the medical needs service. The Council received the school’s referral on 31 October 2019. The Council’s medical needs service then made enquires of G’s doctor, and on 29 November 2019 referred G to the Short Stay School for Norfolk, the commissioned provider, to arrange tuition. The Short Stay School for Norfolk held a planning meeting on 12 December and agreed provision for G. This included two visits a week to ‘support [G] with learning and help to organise work set by the [infant] school for the week.’

Consideration

86. It should have been clear to the Council in early October 2019 there were serious problems with G’s education. G had struggled to cope at infant school and had already missed a considerable amount of education. Her transfer to junior school was not successful. An annual review of her EHC Plan says the school is unsuitable. Mrs X asked repeatedly for help.

Finding

87. The Council should have been proactive in securing suitable alternative education for G in October 2019. It was responsible for her special educational provision and aware of the problems. Its response was inadequate. It lacked coordination. It does not appear there was anybody to take responsibility and sort out problems. Different Council departments offered conflicting advice and referred Mrs X and the school to other services. This must have been incredibly frustrating for Mrs X. It also wasted time and delayed suitable provision for G.
88. Once the Council received the school’s referral for medical needs support, it was a month before the Council received information from G’s doctor, a month in which G was without education. It took the commissioned provider a further two weeks to arrange tuition. This is fault.
89. It is the Council’s responsibility to arrange suitable education when a child is unable to attend school. While the Council must take account of professional advice, including advice from G’s doctor, it is ultimately the Council’s responsibility to assess the child’s needs and decide on suitable provision.
90. It was clear G was not receiving suitable education at school in early October 2019. The Council did not arrange alternative education until early December. There was a delay of 8 weeks during which G was without suitable education. This is fault and caused injustice.
91. I have concerns about the amount of tuition arranged for G in December 2019, and the Council’s reliance on G’s school to set and mark work. The Council only arranged two sessions a week with a home learning support assistant to “support [G] with learning and help to organise work set by the school.”
92. The Council is responsible for G’s education, and while it is for the Council to decide how to organise its service, it must deliver suitable, full-time education unless the Council determines that full-time education would not be in the child’s best interests. The Council has not provided any evidence that full-time education was not in G’s best interests. Apart from the two sessions with the home learning support assistant, Mrs X was left to organise G’s education. This is fault. It has caused significant injustice: G has not received a suitable education, and Mrs X has had to arrange G’s education herself.

Complaint: G’s transfer to special school

93. G received a diagnosis of autistic spectrum condition in April 2019. Mrs X asked straight away whether it would be possible to put G’s name down for a special school for children with ASC in case her transfer to junior school in September 2019 was not successful.
94. Mrs X’s request for a special school was considered by the Council’s special educational needs placement panel in November 2019, after the October annual review for G’s EHC Plan. Her request was refused because the paperwork did not include G’s ASC diagnosis. Mrs X’s request was considered again at a panel meeting at the end of January 2020. This time her application was approved, although G could not be admitted to the school until September 2020 as the school was full.
95. Once they had secured a place for G at the special school, Mr and Mrs X cancelled the medical needs provision and decided to educate G at home once again.
96. Mrs X complains the Council’s actions delayed G’s transfer to special school.

Consideration and findings

97. G received a diagnosis of ASC in April 2019. She was out of school at the time. The Council did not begin a review of her EHC Plan until October 2019 when her transfer to junior school had been unsuccessful.
98. G’s diagnosis in April 2019 was a significant development and although the Council had only recently amended G’s EHC Plan for her transfer to junior school, it should probably have held another emergency review, particularly as Mrs X wanted to consider a special school.
99. A review would have been an opportunity to explore Mrs X’s wish for a special school if G’s transfer to Junior school was unsuccessful. This was an unusual request which does not fit in with the procedures set out in Regulations and Guidance to decide which school a child should attend.
100. Mr and Mrs X told me they felt they had no choice but to send G to the Junior school until they secured a place at special school because they believed she would be without education if they did not.
101. Email correspondence between Mrs X and a Special Needs Coordinator at the Council over the summer of 2019 suggests Mrs X and G were keen to try the mainstream Junior school in September 2019, and Mrs X also wanted to have the option of a special school if things did not work out.
102. An early annual review would have been an opportunity to resolve these questions. However, I cannot speculate what the outcome of an earlier review would have been. Mr and Mrs X would have had a right of appeal to the Tribunal if they had been unable to reach an agreement with the Council.
103. From early September 2019, when it appeared things were not going to work out at the Junior school, Mrs X’s emails make it clear she wanted G to transfer to the special school. The Council began a review of G’s EHC Plan in October 2019 and took account of Mrs X’s wishes.
104. The Council did not include information about G’s diagnosis with the information that went to the Panel in November 2019. This appears to have been a mistake by the Council. The Panel did not consider Mr and Mrs X’s request for a special school until January 2020 when it agreed G could start in September 2020.
105. The Council says G could not have started at the special school any sooner as the school was full and there were no places available until September 2020. The October 2019 review decided G needed a special education but the Council was unable to arrange one for her until September 2020. This is a significant injustice.
106. Having secured a place at the special school in January 2020, Mr and Mrs X decided to make their own arrangements for G’s education until she could start in September 2020. Had they not done so, it appears the Council would have continued to offer the medical needs tuition outlined above. Medical needs tuition is not an acceptable alternative to a special school place.

Conclusions

107. I find the Council:
• took too long to issue G’s EHC Plan;
• failed to ensure G received all the provision in her EHC Plan while she was at infant school;
• failed to consider G’s needs in March and April 2019 and make alternative arrangements for her education when she was unable to attend school;
• failed to reassess G’s needs and review her EHC Plan following her diagnosis of ASC in April 2019;
• failed to take a proactive approach and took too long to make alternative arrangements when problems arose following G’s transfer to junior school in September 2019;
• failed to provide the place at a special school the Council decided G needed in January 2020 until September 2020;
• failed to respond adequately to Mr and Mrs X’s complaints.

Recommended action

108. We have published guidance to explain how we recommend remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred. When this is not possible we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment to acknowledge the injustice. We may also recommend a council reviews its policies and procedures.
109. It is difficult to say exactly how much education G has missed as a result of fault by the Council. There has been considerable disruption to G’s education over a period of at least two years, during which the Council has been aware of G’s needs and should have been providing education. The Council has relied on G’s schools when it should have made alternative arrangements itself.
110. Further, the Council has been unable to provide G with the special school place the October 2019 review decided she needed until September 2020.
111. Mr and Mrs X have gone to considerable time and trouble arranging G’s education, both when the Council was nominally involved through its medical needs service, and when they ‘gave up’ on the Council’s provision having secured a place at special school.
112. Finally, it is clear that Mr and Mrs X’s dealings with the Council have been a source of considerable stress over a prolonged period of time. The records show that Mrs X has gone to very considerable lengths to secure education for G in difficult circumstances. The Council provided incorrect advice and failed to explain its powers and duties to help.
113. Most concerning of all, there has been a lack of joined-up approach from the Council, and Mr and Mrs X have been left to deal with an incredibly complicated situation themselves. The Council appears to have sought to limit its involvement and relied on others, including G’s schools, to carry out duties which remain the responsibility of the Council.
114. To remedy the injustice caused by the Council’s faults, I recommend that within one month of my final decision, the Council:
• apologises to Mr and Mrs X and G for the faults I have identified;
• makes a symbolic payment of £3,000 to Mr and Mrs X to recognise the disruption to G’s education in the two years between the summer term of 2018 and the summer term of 2020;
• makes a payment of £500 to Mr and Mrs X for the unnecessary time, trouble and stress in securing support for G and pursuing their complaint; and
115. I recommend the Council also reviews its policies and procedures to ensure:
1. the special educational provision required by a child’s EHC Plan is delivered;
2. the Council fulfils its duties to children unable to attend school for health reasons, and in particular that it is able to demonstrate it has considered a child’s needs and decided whether alternative education is necessary.

Back to top

Final decision

116. The Council accepts my findings and recommendations so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman