Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s lack of support for her children, A and B, who have special educational needs. The Council was at fault for a delay in issuing an amended Education Health and Care plan for A in early 2019, a delay in providing a listening device for A, the failure to ensure all the speech and language provision in A’s plan was delivered between April and September 2019, and the failure to identify a specialist dyslexia tutor for both boys. It should pay Mrs X £1,000 to remedy the frustration and time and trouble the faults caused her, and the injustice and uncertainty the lack of support caused the boys.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the level of support provided for her two sons, A and B, who have special educational needs, from 2014 onwards. She said there was a delay by the Council in identifying those needs, delays in the Education Health and Care plan process, and a failure to ensure the provision set out in various plans was delivered.
2. There were a number of different school placements over that period and Mrs X complains about delays in finding an alternative school for A on two occasions, and a failure to provide alternative education when he was out of school.
3. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed in carrying out social care assessments for her children and a carer’s assessment for herself.
4. Mrs X says as a result of the faults the children have lost out on educational support, and she has not been able to work outside the home due to the time needed to resolve problems with the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. 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)
8. SEND is a tribunal that considers special educational needs. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (‘SEND’))
9. 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)
10. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
11. 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

12. I spoke to Mrs X and considered the information she provided.
13. I considered the Council’s replies to my enquiries.
14. I considered relevant law and guidance, as set out below, and our guidance on remedies.
15. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on two draft decisions and I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans

16. 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.
17. Statutory guidance says councils must gather information from relevant professionals, including information from children’s social care. Where the child has a child in need plan, information may be drawn from this for the EHC plan. Where the council identifies a need for help and support this should be provided as soon as the need is identified and not wait until the EHC plan is issued.
18. The Council is responsible for making sure that arrangements specified in the EHC plan are put in place. We can look at complaints about this, such as where support set out in the EHC plan has not been provided, or where there have been delays in the process.
19. The EHC assessment and EHC plan development must be carried out in a timely manner. The final EHC plan should usually be issued within 20 weeks. (para 9.53 of the Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years)
20. EHC plans should be reviewed annually. Within four weeks of the review meeting the council must decide whether it proposes to keep the EHC plan as it is, amend the plan or cease to maintain the plan. It must tell the parent and the school what it has decided. If the council decided to amend the EHC plan it should start the process of amendment without delay. If the council decides to amend the EHC plan it should send the child’s parents a final amended EHC plan within eight weeks of its decision to amend it and explain their rights to appeal to the SEND tribunal if they are not happy with the amended EHC plan.

Local offer

21. All councils should publish a Local Offer setting out in one place information about provision they expect to be available across education, health and social care for children in their area with special educational needs or disabilities.

Child out of school

22. The law says councils must make suitable full-time educational provision for children of compulsory school age who are absent from school because of illness, exclusion or otherwise. The provision must be suitable for the child’s age, ability and aptitude, including any special needs. The provision may be part-time where the child’s physical or mental health means full-time education would not be in their best interests. (Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, as amended).
23. Statutory guidance says education should be provided as soon as it is clear the child will be away from school for 15 days or more, and should address the needs of the individual child. (Statutory guidance: Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs, 2013).
24. Where a child is not attending school, the council may serve a notice requiring parents to satisfy them that their child is receiving suitable education. If the council is not satisfied, it may issue a School Attendance Order. Councils can prosecute parents who do not comply with a School Attendance Order.

CAMHS

25. CAMHS is a health service for children, and their families, who need support for mental health issues. CAMHS also carry out assessments for conditions such as autism.

Children’s social care

26. Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act requires councils to provide services to disabled children and their families, commonly called “short breaks”. Short breaks may be provided by practical assistance in the home or recreational facilities or respite care outside the home. The short breaks agreed should be set out in the child’s EHC plan.
27. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
28. A child is in need if:

• he is unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support; or
• his health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support: or
• he is disabled.

29. Where a council decides the child is “in need” under section 17 it may issue a “child in need” plan and monitor the delivery of the support set out in that plan by holding review meetings.

Early Help

30. Early Help is support the council gives to children and families where they have additional needs that cannot be met by services available to everyone, such as education and health. The purpose is to put in support at an early stage to prevent needs becoming so great they require specialist support.
31. The court has said Early help may be provided for disabled children with lower level needs (R(L and P) v Warwickshire County Council [2015] EWHC 203 (Admin))

Carer’s Assessment

32. Where an individual provides care for another adult or for a disabled child and the council considers they may have need for support, it should carry out a carer’s assessment. This should set out the carer’s support needs and should also consider the sustainability of the caring role itself. (Care and Support Statutory Guidance 2014)
33. Section 17ZD of the Children Act 1989 says a council must assess whether a parent carer needs support if:
• it appears the parent carer may have needs for support, or
• it receives a request from the parent carer to assess their need for support; and
• the council is satisfied the disabled child and their family are persons for whom they may arrange or provide services under section 17.

Overview of complaints

34. Mrs X has made a number of complaints, involving her two children. In this second draft decision, in attempt to make the decision easier to follow, I have set out the complaints as follows:
1. Complaints about SEN support for child A
2. Complaints about SEN support for child B
3. Assessing social care needs
4. Access to a learning disability nurse
5. Carer’s assessment
6. Changes of caseworker

(A) Complaints about support for child A

Scope of my investigation

35. A has special educational needs and health needs. Mrs X complains about delays in identifying all his needs and providing appropriate support for him from 2014 onwards. I understand the Council first issued an Education and Health Care (EHC) plan in June 2017. Mrs X made several complaints to the Council and relevant health bodies at the time.
36. We cannot investigate complaints about events more than 12 months before the person complained to us unless there are good reasons for doing so, and we are satisfied there are sufficient records available to make a robust and defensible decision. Mrs X complained to us in August 2019 and there is no good reason she did not do so before. We would usually go back 12 months from the date of the complaint.
37. We also cannot investigate complaints where the person had a right to appeal to a tribunal unless it was not reasonable to expect them to do so. This includes complaints about the provision set out in an EHC plan and concerns about the school or type of school named in the EHC plan. Nor can we investigate something that is closely linked to a tribunal case.
38. I have exercised discretion to investigate Mrs X’s complaints about support for A from May 2018 onwards, which was when the Council issued an amended EHC plan, immediately following a tribunal appeal. The EHC plan dated May 2018 named school 1, a mainstream primary school. Mrs X says the Council should not have named school 1 because it was a failing school, and it should have known this would not be suitable for A. I cannot comment on this because school 1 was named on A’s EHC plan and only the tribunal could determine whether that school was suitable.

Support for A at school 1

39. Mrs X said the Council should have held an annual review in June 2018, a year after issuing the first EHC plan and one month after the Council issued A’s final amended EHC plan following the tribunal hearing. I have seen no record it did so. However, it did discuss his support at an Early Help meeting in June 2018, which noted that a final EHCP had been issued, following the tribunal hearing. School 1 reported A was making good progress with his learning, was “accessing support for his literacy and dyslexia”, was “accessing SALT” and an OT assessment had been arranged. Mrs X reported she was pleased with the progress A was making at school 1. Although Mrs X said she considered A needed one-to-one support throughout the day, including during breaks, the May 2018 EHC plan does not state this. It says A requires a flexible package of support with “a high level of individual 1:1 adult support, small group … and structured support”.
40. There were a number of further assessment reports received after the EHC plan was issued, including information from speech and language in June, medical information in September and a psychology report in early November 2018.
41. Mrs X says the Council told her in November 2018 that the EHC plan dated May 2018 was being “scrapped” because it was an illegal plan. She says this should not have happened. She complains it did not issue an amended plan until February 2019.
42. The Council said it was in the process of moving from one format to another in 2018. A’s EHC plan had originally been prepared using the “old” format and was issued in that format following the appeal. The Council decided not to convert it to the “new” format until after a review meeting in November 2018, which I understand was arranged after Mrs X said school 1 was not delivering the provision in the EHC plan. It issued a revised draft EHC plan on 20 November, following which it had a meeting with Mrs X to discuss the proposed changes. It issued a further draft EHC plan on 19 December 2018 and a final plan was issued in February 2019. During this period A also moved to a new school (see below).
43. In an email after the meeting Mrs X said neither the Council nor school 1 understood all A’s needs. She said the school had not provided:
• coloured paper required for his Irlen’s;
• 1-2-1 support for A, including a break times; and
• a listening device for A
44. Mrs X said A stopped attending school 1 in late November after an incident when he tried to run away from school and CAMHS advised her that he should not return there.

Findings

45. The Council did not carry out an annual review in June 2018. There is nothing in the legislation that says an annual review does not need to be held because of tribunal processes so the failure to carry out a review in June 2018 was fault. However, I do not consider this caused an injustice. This is because it was within a month of the tribunal hearing and the issue of an amended plan. Therefore, it was unlikely any changes would be made to the plan at that point.
46. In November 2018, in response to Mrs X’s concerns that school 1 was not delivering all the support in A’s EHC plan, the Council held a review meeting. This was not a properly constituted annual review, which is what I would have expected in the circumstances. This was fault. However, the Council agreed to amend the EHC plan and issued two draft amended plans in November and December 2018.
47. The Council did not issue a final EHC plan until February 2019. This was more than eight weeks after agreeing to amend the plan. The Council was at fault for its delay in issuing the final plan. However, I note that A changed school during this period and will take that into account when considering whether he suffered an injustice as a result of that fault (see below).
48. It is not clear whether school 1 was delivering the support set out in the plan. The Council had a duty to ensure the special educational provision was in place and it said it was. Mrs X said it wasn’t. Mrs X said it wasn’t delivering 1-2-1 support all through the day, including at break times but the plan did not state that. She also said a listening device was not provided. The plan states the Council had received advice there was evidence that “young people benefit from a listening device to boost the teacher’s voice” and that “The setting will contact the [Council] to arrange the loan of equipment equivalent to that recommended by Audiology”. The Council says the listening device was only advisory but the plan clearly stated it would be provided, at least on loan. It was not ordered until October 2019 and the failure to provide it from May 2018 was fault.
49. Except for the listening device, there is insufficient evidence to reach conclusions about whether all the support in A’s EHC plan was provided at school 1.
50. I have seen no record the Council “scrapped” the EHC plan in November 2018. The EHC plan dated May 2018 remained in force until it was replaced by the final amended EHC plan in February 2019. There was no fault in the Council’s actions in this respect.

Change of school

51. Mrs X said A was unhappy at school 1. He had tried to run away and CAMHS had advised her he should not return there. She said he did not attend from late November 2018. She said the Council delayed in identifying a new school and did not provide alternative education whilst he was out of school.
52. In a complaint response dated January 2019, the Council noted A was “deeply unhappy” at school 1 and officers had attended several meetings with Mrs X to support the school. It said it had received advice suggesting a special school was appropriate and that, although initially this was not what Mrs X wanted, she had on reflection agreed it was a good outcome.
53. The Council consulted with a local special school but neither Mrs X nor the school considered it was right for A. The Council consulted out of its area and identified school 2, which offered a place to A starting on 21 January 2019.
54. From early December 2018 the Council arranged and funded private tuition for A. The Council said this was supplemented by work sent home by school 1 but Mrs X says school 1 did not provide any work for A to complete at home.
55. Mrs X said the Council should not have placed A at school 2 because:
• it knew that school could not meet his needs and its consultation was based on an incorrect plan; and
• a special school was not appropriate because A did not have behavioural issues.
56. Council records indicate it used the latest version of the EHC plan (the draft dated December 2018) when it consulted with school 2. In reply to my enquiries it said school 2 was rated “good” across all areas, and offered speech and language therapy, occupational therapy and a therapeutic approach to learning, all of which it considered A would benefit from given his educational profile.
57. The Council issued an amended plan in February 2019, naming school 2, an independent special school. Mrs X had the right to appeal if she was unhappy with the provision set out in the amended plan or the school named in it. She did not appeal.

Findings

58. The Council accepted in December 2018 that school 1 was not suitable because A was unhappy there. There was no delay in consulting other schools.
59. The Council did not arrange formal alternative education but it did arrange and fund private tuition. Given the short time that A was out of school and the fact this period included the Christmas holidays, I consider that was sufficient.
60. Since this was not a planned move, the Council did not have time to finalise a new EHC plan before consulting with schools. It used the latest version of the plan when consulting school 2.
61. I cannot comment on whether school 2 was suitable for A since this would be a matter for the tribunal to determine.
62. The delay in finalising the amended EHC plan meant Mrs X’s appeal rights to the tribunal were also delayed. However, she did not appeal and therefore the delay did not cause her an injustice. I am not persuaded that A suffered a significant injustice as a result of the delay given that the final amended plan was issued within one month of him starting school 2. I will consider the support provided by school 2 below.

Support provided by school 2

63. The Council was under a duty to ensure that school 2 delivered the provision set out in the EHC plan dated May 2018 until the amended plan was issued in February 2019, after which it should have delivered the provision set out in the amended plan. Mrs X says school 2 did not deliver any of the provision set out in either plan.
64. From March 2019, Mrs X also had concerns about the behaviour of other pupils both in school and the impact of this on A, and about the behaviour of another pupil in home to school transport. She raised her concerns with the Council, which addressed them appropriately with school 2, and met with Mrs X to discuss what action to take. As a result, A was moved to a different class and the other pupil was removed from the transport.
65. The Council held an annual review in May 2019. The record of the meeting shows the school was delivering speech and language provision as part of the normal classroom teaching. Other documents show there was a dispute between two speech and language therapists about the level of support A needed. In an email after the meeting, a Council officer expressed disappointment that school 2 had not agreed to the provision set out in the private speech and language therapist’s report and were refusing to add it to the plan. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the provision set out in the plan was delivered.
66. Mrs X also complained A did not receive two sessions of one hour weekly from a dyslexia tutor. She said understood the Council had continued the private tuition, initially agreed to support A when he stopped attending school 1, to remedy the failure to provide a specialist teacher. She said a specialist teacher would have provided the support for A in school whereas she had to transport A to the private tuition provider and the Council did not assist her with transport.
67. The Council said the private tuition was started to support A when he was out of school in December 2018 and it continued to fund this to support A. It said it included it in the EHC plan dated February 2019 at Mrs X’s insistence. It was not to remedy the lack of a dyslexia tutor. It said no professional had recommended the private tuition provision. It said it had identified a dyslexia tutor but this was not successful because they questioned the other professional reports and appeared to contradict the diagnostic report for A. The tutor was not replaced.
68. Mrs X withdrew A from school 2 on 4 July 2019 because she felt he was not safe there. She said A was emotionally affected by his time at school 2 but the Council refused to provide support to help him overcome this. The Council explained that CAMHS was supporting A with his anxiety with regular appointments and with medication, which it considered was appropriate support for A.

Findings

69. Mrs X reported a number of issues about the behaviour of other pupils at school 2 towards A in February and March 2019. I am satisfied the Council took appropriate action as set out above.
70. There is a conflict of evidence about the support school 2 provided. Mrs X said it did not provide any of the support in A’s EHC plans. The Council said it worked closely with the school to ensure the support was provided.
71. However, the records suggest there was an issue with the speech and language support.
72. The EHC plan dated May 2018 sets out strategies outlined in a speech and language therapy programme, which would be used in the classroom. It did not state A needed separate sessions for speech and language support. If Mrs X was unhappy with the wording in the EHC plan she had a right of appeal to the Tribunal.
73. The documents show there was a dispute between two speech and language professionals about the support A needed and that the school did not agree to changes in the plan. Whilst I understand Mrs X wanted A to receive the highest possible level of support, the Council is only responsible for delivering the support set out in the plan.
74. The EHC plan dated February 2019 stated a programme of three 15 minute sessions per week. Records show school 2 was delivering speech and language strategies in the classroom but it is not clear if A was also receiving the specific 15 minute sessions. On balance, I consider the Council did not ensure school 2 delivered all the speech and language support set out in A’s EHC plan from February to July 2019. This was fault.
75. Although A missed out on some of the speech and language provision, I cannot assess how much was missed nor the impact on A of the missed provision, particularly given there was some support in the classroom. Therefore, I will recommend a modest payment to remedy the shortfall.
76. The EHC plan dated February 2019 also said A should receive two 60 minute specialist lessons per week with a “trained teacher with a recognised qualification in Literacy Difficulties delivering an agreed programme”. The Council accepted that after the initial unsuccessful appointment it had not been able to identify a specialist teacher. The failure to deliver this between February and September 2019 was fault. I will recommend a further payment for the injustice caused to A as a result of the missed provision.
77. The Council funded the private tuition during this period, which supported A’s literacy. This was set out in A’s EHC plan dated February 2019 so the Council was required to deliver it. The plan does not state this was instead of a specialist teacher and I have seen no record to suggest this. In the circumstances, I cannot conclude that this was support that should have been provided in school and therefore that the Council should provide transport for it.

Child out of school

78. A stopped attending school 2 on 4 July 2019. He started at school 3 on 21 September 2019.
79. The Council said it was not possible for A to start earlier due to the need for a consultation period, which ran across the school summer holidays. A initially attended school 3 on a part-time basis to ease his transition back into school.
80. Whilst A was out of school, the Council funded eight sessions per week of private tuition, which continued throughout the school summer holidays, at Mrs X’s request.

Findings

81. When Mrs X withdrew A from school 2, the Council was proactive in identifying an alternative. It was not at fault.
82. Given that A was out of school for 28 days in total and the Council arranged private tuition, including during the school holidays, I consider it took sufficient steps to ensure A’s education. It was not at fault.
83. I investigated the period to September 2019. Any concerns about the support school 3 provided will need to be considered separately.

(B) Complaints about support for child B

Scope of my investigation

84. Mrs X has complained about delays in assessing B’s needs from 2016 onwards. The Council decided not to issue an EHC plan for B in February 2018. Mrs X appealed to the Tribunal, which upheld the Council’s decision in July 2018. Mrs X lodged an appeal, which was not successful, but in November 2018, in response to her complaint, the Council agreed to request further assessments and issue an EHC plan.
85. As explained above, we would usually go back 12 months from the date of the complaint to us and cannot consider periods where a complainant is appealing to a tribunal. Therefore, I have investigated the period from November 2018 when the Council agreed to assess to August 2019 when it issued the first EHC plan, following the various appeals to the SEND tribunal.

Delay in issuing EHC plan

86. The 20 week statutory timescales meant a target date for issuing the EHC plan of 1 April 2019.
87. The Council already had some assessment reports for B, included an educational psychologist report dated January 2018. B had been diagnosed with dyslexia prior to that and was being supported with his dyslexia through a school SEND support plan.
88. In November 2018, the Council requested a private speech and language assessment and a private occupational therapy assessment. It received those reports in February 2019.
89. In early December 2018, the Council arranged and funded private tuition for B to support his learning in English and maths. This was in recognition that he had not made progress in reading and spelling in the previous year. Also, in December 2018 Mrs X decided to move B to another school.
90. The Council issued a final EHC plan on 29 August 2019, which was 21 weeks later than it should have done. This named the new school, which B started attending in September 2019. The Council accepted there was a delay in issuing the final EHC plan, which it said was because Mrs X did not agree the draft EHC plan. It said this was redrafted several times to support B and avoid a further appeal to the tribunal. I understand it issued drafts on 29 July and 12 August 2019, which were not agreed by Mrs X.
91. Mrs X does not agree that her refusal to accept the draft plans caused delay. She said the plans did not include all the assessments obtained and did not set out all the provision she considered B needed so she could not agree them.
92. B’s EHC plan dated August 2019 stated that B should receive two 80 minute private tuition (one session for English and one session for maths) until it could secure two 60 minute sessions by a specialist teacher to support his dyslexia. The Council accepts there has been a delay in identifying a specialist dyslexia teacher.

Findings

93. The Council should have issued an EHC plan in early April 2019 but did not do so until August 2019. That was 21 weeks late. Given that it did not need to carry out a full EHC assessment because it already had some reports about B’s special educational needs, I would have expected it to issue a final EHC plan well within the 20 weeks stipulated by the SEND Code of Practice. The failure to issue the plan within the statutory timeframe was fault.
94. The delay in issuing a final EHC plan may have caused a delay in B receiving the support set out in the plan, although I am aware that B was already receiving some of that support through a school SEND plan. I also note the Council funded private tuition from December 2018, which from August 2019 remedied the failure to identify a specialist dyslexia tutor. In the circumstances, it is difficult to establish whether the delay caused an injustice to B but it did cause frustration to Mrs X, who says she felt she had to keep fighting to get him the supported he needed and I will recommend a token payment to remedy that. It also delayed her appeal rights but she did not appeal so that did not cause an injustice.
95. I have not investigated the period after the EHC plan was issued in August 2019.

(C) Assessing social care needs

96. Mrs X says the Council did not properly assess her children’s social care needs when issuing their EHC plans. She says the Council could not do so without carrying out a comprehensive assessment under section 17.
97. As explained previously, we would usually only investigate matters up to 12 months before the complaint to us but I exercised discretion to consider the support for A from May 2018 to September 2019. However, I will provide context for this part of the complaint by referencing key events from 2016 onwards.
98. Council records show it carried out an Early Help assessment in October 2016 and was providing Early Help support from that time. This involved multi-agency meetings to consider the needs of all the children in the family. These meetings considered all the children’s needs not just their special educational needs. Through this process the Council identified A needed short breaks support. An after school club was identified to meet A’s needs, which was in place by July 2017, and was recorded in his EHC plan.
99. There is also a record to show the Council considered whether A needed support from a learning disability nurse or child in need plan in November 2018. It decided this was not needed at that time because the support Mrs X said he needed related to support in school, which was included in his EHC plan and was being delivered. (The provision of a learning disability nurse is considered further below).
100. The Council did carry out a full section 17 assessment in August 2019 at Mrs X’s request. It agreed to support the boys with a child in need plan for a short period to support their parents in coordinating support for the children. Following the assessment, the Council agreed A should receive 10 hours per week support from a personal assistant and that B should receive short break provision in the form of an after school club. Mrs X says this support should have been provided at least two years earlier.

Findings

101. There is no requirement to carry out a social care assessment as part of the EHC assessment. The requirement is to consult with children’s social care in order to identify if there are any social care needs that should be included in the EHC plan. Information in any existing statutory plans, such as a child in need plan, would usually be summarised in the EHC plan.
102. In this case, there had been social care involvement in the form of Early Help from 2016, and the Council had also assessed A as needing short breaks provision, which was included in section D of his EHC plan, although it should also have been set out in section H.
103. In November 2018, the Council considered whether A had social care needs after Mrs X asked about a LD nurse. It decided he did not appear to need support outside school, beyond the short breaks support already identified.
104. The court has said that councils can use Early Help to assess disabled children with lower level needs rather than a section 17 assessment. Although it would have been good practice to carry out a formal assessment, there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council decided it was not necessary. It considered the information it already had and met with Mrs X to discuss A’s needs. It was not necessary to carry out a section 17 assessment to provide short breaks and it considered A’s other needs would be met by the provision in his EHC plan. Unless there is evidence of fault in the way a decision is reached, I cannot comment on the decision.
105. The Council carried out a formal assessment in August 2019. Mrs X was unhappy with the outcome of that assessment and has made a separate complaint to the Council about that.

(D) Access to a learning disability nurse

106. Mrs X complained CAMHS identified a need for A to access a Learning Disability (LD) nurse but the Council did not provide this.
107. The Council says CAMHS referred A for support in November 2018. The Council asked an LD nurse to consider whether A needed support with behaviour management and routines. Council records show the LD nurse met Mrs X to discuss A’s needs, which appeared to be about support in school. As support was already in place for this, the Council did not consider further support from the LD nurse or social care was needed and the case was closed. The record states: “As it was made clear to Mum that neither Social Care nor LD nurse service would be involved she expressed disappointment, but stated she understood why”.
108. Following the child and young person’s assessment in 2019, Mrs X again requested support from an LD nurse. She asked for a personal budget so she could purchase LD nurse support for A but this was refused because there was no identified need for an LD nurse.

Finding

109. The Council considered whether A needed support from an LD nurse after the CAMHS referral in November 2018. It did not identify any needs that were not already being addressed so the case was closed.
110. It later considered a direct payment for Mrs X to access an LD nurse privately but again said it had not identified a need for this support.
111. It is not for me to say whether it made the right decisions. I have not found evidence of fault in the way the Council considered this.

(E) Carer’s assessment

112. Mrs X complained she asked for a carer’s assessment in July 2019 after CAMHS told her she was entitled to one but the Council delayed in carrying out the assessment. She said the Council should have offered an assessment long before this.
113. The Council said Mrs X requested a carer’s assessment in summer 2019 but was not happy with the social worker who was allocated to do this. The Council allocated a new social worker, who completed an assessment in December 2019.
114. The assessment indicated Mrs X considered that counselling and a funded nursery place for her youngest child so she could have some time alone would help her in her caring role.
115. The assessment recommended counselling but Mrs X said she did not need this because she was receiving family support from CAMHS. The Council also offered three hours per week short breaks provision for her youngest child. Mrs X said that was not appropriate because that child is not disabled and didn’t need short breaks provision. She said funding for free nursery hours would be more appropriate to meet her needs as a carer.

Findings

116. The Council was under a duty to assess her needs as a carer if either it identified she needed support, for example, through the early Help process, or she had asked for support.
117. The Council carried out an Early Help assessment in October 2016. The main concerns identified at that time were around A’s learning and ensuring appropriate support for him in school. It also identified B may need support in school. The assessment considered the wider family. It stated Mrs X was frustrated because due to dealing with A’s behaviours and stressed due to the difficulty of getting him sufficient support in school. It stated she was a full-time Mum but wanted to return to work when the time was right, and that she had the support of a good family network. There were no concerns about her ability to meet the needs of her children. The assessment did not identify any need for her to receive support as a carer.
118. There is no record the Council identified a need for support in the period I am investigating. It continued to provide support through the early Help process and Mrs X had the opportunity at review meetings to say if she needed more support than she was receiving. If she had suggested she needed more support, I would have expected the Council to consider this, but I have seen no record she did so It did respond to her request when Mrs X asked for a carer’s assessment in the summer of 2019.
119. The records show the Council allocated a social worker to carry out an assessment without undue delay but Mrs X was not happy about the social worker chosen to do this. The Council agreed to allocate a different social worker but this led to a delay in completing the assessment. The Council was not at fault.
120. As part of the carer’s assessment, Mrs X indicated that counselling would be helpful and the Council offered this. She also asked for funded nursery hours for her youngest child. The Council offered three hours per week short break provision. It is not clear why the Council did not agree to the funded nursery place that Mrs X wanted, but the short break provision recognises and addresses her need to have a regular break from her caring responsibilities. The Council was not at fault.

(E) Named contact

121. Mrs X said that in response to a previous complaint the Council said it would allocate her a named contact in the SEN team. Mrs X says this did not happen. She says officers leave and she is left with no specific person to contact.
122. The Council explained that all children being assessed or who have EHC plans have a named co-ordinator. In addition, Mrs X has contacted senior managers throughout, although this has not always been the same person as staff have left or moved to new positions and been replaced with new people.

Findings

123. The records show that a number of officers and managers have been involved with the children’s assessments and EHC plans. Although there may be short time periods where Mrs X was unsure who to contact, I am satisfied the Council has responded to her communications within a reasonable timeframe and generally ensured input from a senior manager. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Agreed actions

124. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision, apologise to Mrs X for the delay in issuing an amended EHC plan for A in early 2019, the delay in providing a listening device for A between May 2018 and October 2019, the failure to ensure all the speech and language provision in A’s EHC plan dated February 2019 was delivered, a delay in issuing B’s EHC plan between April and August 2019, and the failure to identify a specialist dyslexia tutor for A from February 2019 and for B from August 2019.
125. The Council will, within one month of the date of the final decision, pay Mrs X £1,000 to remedy:
• the frustration, and time and trouble in pursuing the Council to ensure her sons’ needs were met;
• the injustice to A caused by the delay in providing a listening device, and a failure to provide all the speech and language support set out in his EHC plan between February and July 2019;
• the uncertainty caused by the failure to identify a specialist dyslexia tutor for A and B.
126. The Council will, within three months of the date of the final decision, review its processes to ensure that:
• it issues EHC plans and amended plans within the statutory timescales; and
• it carries out an annual review of all EHC plans at least every 12 months, and writes to parents with its decision about whether it will cease, maintain or amend the plan, and relevant appeal rights.

Back to top

Final decision

127. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and prevent recurrence of the fault.
128. 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