Summary: Mrs D complained about the actions the Council took in respect of her son, B’s, special educational needs after he was out of school from March 2019. She also complained that the Council delayed excessively in dealing with her complaint about the matter. We found some fault in the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs D a total of £900 and improve its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complained about the actions Surrey County Council (the Council) took in respect of her son’s, (B’s), Education Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and educational provision after he was excluded from school in March 2019. Specifically, it:
• failed to undertake an annual review of B’s EHCP in 2018 following a change in placement;
• did not amend or review B’s EHCP or obtain up-to-date professional reports in 2018, which led to placement failure in a second school in 2019 and continued to negatively impact on finding a suitable school placement from March to August 2019;
• failed to provide appropriate and sufficient education and support to meet B’s needs since March 2019 following his exclusion from school;
• provided tuition in an unsuitable location with no toilet facilities or space for B to have lunch;
• inappropriately removed Speech and Language (SALT) support between March and August 2019 and from B’s EHCP on the basis of an invalid assessment;
• failed to undertake targeted consultation to identify a school placement that was appropriate and met B’s needs;
• delayed issuing B’s final EHCP until September 2019, preventing Mrs D appealing to the SEND Tribunal; and,
• delayed for 12 months in responding to Mrs D’s complaints about these issues.
2. Mrs D says her son has missed out of a significant amount of time in education and this has put him behind his peers. She wants the Council to reconsider Post-16 provision for B at a suitable special needs sixth form school and for the Council to consider providing transport to help B catch up on the work he has missed and to help him complete the additional GCSEs he would need to pursue his chosen careers.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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 EHCP 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.
6. We can consider the other sections of an EHCP. We do this by checking the Council followed the correct process, and took account of all relevant information, in deciding what to include. If we find fault affected the outcome, we may ask the Council to reconsider. We will not usually substitute our judgement for the judgement of professionals.
7. The Council is responsible for making sure that arrangements specified in the EHCP are put in place. We can look at complaints about this, such as where support set out in the EHCP has not been provided, or where there have been delays in the process.
8. 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

9. I have considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant, made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided. Mrs D 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

EHCPs

10. The statutory guidance (Special educational needs and disability, a code of practice: 0-25 years) says that councils must review EHCPs every 12 months. It also says that when a council proposes to amend an EHCP it must send the child’s parent a copy of the existing plan and the proposed amendments including copies of any evidence to support the changes. Councils must give parents 15 calendar days to respond and then must issue the amended EHCP as quickly as possible and within eight weeks of the original amendment notice.

Alternative education

11. The Education Act 1996 (Section 19) states that education authorities must make suitable educational provision for children of compulsory school age who are absent from school because of illness, exclusion or otherwise. The provision can be at a school or otherwise, but must be suitable for the child’s age, ability and aptitude, including any special needs.
12. Full-time education is not defined but is commonly held to be equivalent to between 22 and 25 hours a week, depending on the age of the child. The law also allows councils to view one-to-one provision as worth more in terms of time than provision delivered to groups.

What happened

13. Mrs D’s son, B, has special educational needs and an EHCP for several years. Mrs D has made two previous complaints to us about the actions of the Council in respect of D’s special educational needs. We upheld both complaints and recommended remedies. The most recent complaint covered the period between May 2017 and March 2018 when B was out of school following an exclusion. We found the Council failed to provide the therapies and education as directed in the EHCP.
14. In May 2018 B’s new school (School Z) carried out a six-week progress review. It concluded that it could meet B’s needs. Mrs D and B were happy with the situation at that time and did not raise any concerns.
15. In March 2019 just before the planned annual review was due to take place, School Z said it could no longer meet B’s needs.
16. Instead of the annual review, the Council held a meeting with Mrs D to discuss the next steps for B. It had reports from a speech and language therapist (SALT), an occupational therapist (OT), B’s social worker and a report from a specialist sensory OT. The Council agreed to arrange interim tuition, SALT and some OT sessions while B was out of school, to update the EHCP with the reports from the annual review, to consult with other appropriate schools for a place for B and to update Mrs D on a weekly basis.
17. The Council made referrals to a tuition service, SALT and OT within several days and suggested several schools.
18. The SALT team said in reply:

“The therapy needs to be integrated into the curriculum so it would be difficult to do this in the home setting. I would suggest asking the SLT who has been working with him to provide parents with a programme of work at home until a suitable placement can be found.”

19. The SALT team also raised concerns about the quality of the school’s report and did not think it was suitable to consult schools with. It suggested talking to Mrs D to find out what input B needed with a view to finding an independent therapist. The SALT team made an appointment to carry out its own assessment of B in April 2019. At this point the Council said it believed Mrs D agreed with this approach.
20. It sent an amended copy of B’s EHCP to Mrs D on 20 March 2019. She replied the same day saying that with some suggested minor amendments she was happy with it and expressed a preference for one of the schools.
21. Tuition (20 hours a week) and occupational therapy sessions started at the beginning of April 2019. The Council arranged transport to the OT sessions and the tuition took place in a public library on four mornings. The fifth morning took place in Mrs D’s home as the library was closed. There was nowhere for B to eat lunch so he cycled to his grandmother’s home and Mrs D said he could not use the toilet in the library. She did not raise these issues with the Council at this point.
22. The first three schools declined to offer B a place. The Council consulted several more schools. On 29 March 2019 Mrs D requested a new educational psychologist’s (EP) assessment to make sure B’s needs were properly assessed and detailed in the EHCP to ensure the right school was found. She said the most recent EP report was three years old. The Council responded saying it needed to find a school placement before an EP could reassess B.
23. The SALT team did a reassessment of B on 29 April 2019. The assessment concluded that B presented with appropriate communication skills in a 1:1 environment with an adult, that he was able to appropriately engage in adult-led conversation and was able to focus and follow adult-led tasks in a quiet 1:1 environment. The Council says Mrs D agreed with the SALT manager over the telephone and the SALT at the assessment that B had improved and did not require direct intervention while at home but could restart therapy when he was back in a school. Mrs D disputes this.
24. Mrs D thanked the SALT in an email sent after the assessment on 29 April 2019. In this email she said that lack of support including SALT in primary school had affected B and led to frustration and disruptive behaviour in school because he didn’t feel secure or self-confident. She went on:

“As you said today a lot is going to be dependent on the school setting and the provision being regularly reviewed to ensure it's taking place on a regular basis. I'd really like there to be no room for schools to wriggle out of providing [B] what he needs, especially as he is starting to progress in some areas; I feel it's really important the SALT provision continues to build on that”

25. The SALT replied with reference to the EHCP:

“I agree with all of the indirect recommendations and will be suggesting that these remain, I will just be changing the direct part to reflect the SALT programme school need to deliver, social skills group and all the strategies we discussed”

26. At the end of April 2019, the Council was finalising the amended EHCP, but Mrs D objected to the description of B’s primary need in the plan. She felt there was too much emphasis on his dyslexia which was giving an inaccurate impression of his academic ability and not enough focus on his other needs. She felt this was impacting on the Council’s ability to consult with the most suitable schools.
27. In May 2019 the Council contacted another organisation with experience of working with B for advice on placement options. They agreed with two of the schools already contacted. The Council also challenged two of the schools to provide more detailed reasons for rejecting B. The Council sent another version of the amended EHCP to Mrs D for comments.
28. Mrs D sent in some more reports to add to the EHCP. She said it was too late to affect the consultations as these had taken place with the old out-of-date EHCP and the rejections were based on this old information. She suggested a different school (School Y) which catered more for communication and interaction needs rather than specific learning difficulties.
29. On 22 May 2019 the SALT sent Mrs D a copy of her assessment report. She said she had put in the direct input that they had discussed (SLT programme delivered by school three times a week and a social skills group run by school once a week).
30. On 11 June 2019 Mrs D raised concerns about the assessment report. She was concerned that direct SALT would be removed from the EHCP. She said the therapist had repeated assessments B had already done which affected the conclusions and so it was invalid.
31. The Council agreed to changes to the EHCP based on the new information Mrs D had provided and to reconsult schools who had previously refused. It also agreed to fund a touch-typing course for B. School Z confirmed B’s ability was within the average range although it was affected by his poor behaviour. Mrs D suggested some more schools, including School Y again. The Council also asked various professionals (including the SALT and OT) for their views on Mrs D’s concerns about the focus of B’s primary needs.
32. On 1 July 2019 the Council agreed to carry out another EP assessment. But the following day the adoption team EP gave her summary views on B’s needs. On 4 July 2019 the Council issued another draft EHCP with the amendments suggested by Mrs D and incorporating the views of the professionals.
33. On 11 July 2019 the SALT who had carried out the review assessment disagreed with Mrs D’s view that the assessment was invalid and provided her comments. The SALT manager said:

“[Mrs D] agreed with me on the phone and with [the SALT] in the appointment that [B] has no SLT needs in the home so therapy there is not required at present.”

34. In response to Mrs D’s view that the assessment out of school was unrepresentative of B’s needs, particularly his social needs, the SALT manager said:

“…while he is out of school it is hard to say what his social needs will be in school. His language skills largely within the mild difficulty – average range and do not require direct therapy. He will need support with memory and processing and inference / higher level language hence the programme. [The SALT] acknowledges in her report that he may have social difficulties in a school setting but we will need to wait until he is in school to assess these and decide how to help.”

35. On 23 July 2019 the Council consulted with School Y. The school offered a place on 2 August 2019 with some adjustments. The Council issued another draft EHCP on 8 August 2019. In an attempt to work with Mrs D, it removed reference to the SALT review assessment, but it did not agree the assessment was invalid. It left the SALT provision the same as previously.
36. On 23 August 2018 the placement at School Y was agreed with some extra funding from the Council. Mrs D expressed concern that no other schools had been consulted.
37. At the end of August 2019 Mrs D raised the issue of transport to School Y. The Council said it would take several weeks to arrange and agreed to fund a taxi in the meantime. B started at School Y on 9 September 2019. The Council issued a final amended EHCP on 12 September 2019.

Complaint

38. On 12 July 2019 Mrs D made a formal complaint about the way in which the Council had dealt with the case since March 2019. She raised a number of issues including:
• The amount of chasing she had to do was unacceptable.
• The Council delaying in producing an updated and relevant EHCP, ignoring points Mrs D raised early on in the process.
• No SALT provision then an invalid assessment leading to a removal of appropriate SALT provision in the EHCP.
• Failure to carry out a EP assessment for three years which affected the accuracy of the EHCP and impacted the ability to get a school place for B.
• The Council had not challenged school refusals to offer a place to B.
• Delay in issuing EHCP and it was not accurate.
• Failure to get important information from School Z.
• Failure to carry out an annual review in May 2018 has affected the situation now.
39. The Council replied on 27 August 2019. It said:
• While it respected Mrs D’s view, the records showed the Council had been in regular contact with Mrs D, had endeavoured to keep her informed and consistently sought her input in the process of finding B another school place.
• The code of practice allowed four weeks after the annual review to amend the EHCP, but in this case the Council had send a draft amended EHCP to Mrs D a week after the meeting. Since then, it had taken longer to finalise than the Council would have wanted but it had worked with Mrs D to find a suitable place for B and issued many drafts incorporating her views.
• In respect of the SALT, it said there may have been some confusion as the Council believed Mrs D had been requesting a reassessment. It also recognised there were differing opinions about the most recent SALT assessment. But it recognised B had not received any SALT since March 2019 and this was not the first time provision had been lacking. It apologised for this and offered £500. It said it had removed reference to the review assessment in the most recent draft of the EHCP and this would be reviewed at the next annual review.
• In respect of the request for an EP assessment it said the Council considered it had sufficient information following the annual review to amend the EHCP. After Mrs D’s request it obtained advice from an EP and incorporated her views in the EHCP.
• The Council had consulted with a wide range of schools including schools Mrs D had requested. It had in some cases challenged refusals and asked schools to provide more information. It shared Mrs D’s frustration at the time it had taken to find a place but was pleased B would be starting school in September.
• School Z provided the annual review paperwork within a week of it being held and provided further information over the next few months when requested.
• It agreed it had not completed an annual review in May 2018, but instead School Z had undertaken a progress review. It apologised for this but considered School Z had sufficient understanding of B’s needs at that time and offered him a permanent place.
40. Mrs D was unhappy with the response and escalated it to stage two of the complaints procedure She raised her concerns about the inappropriate venue for the tuition and the delay in approaching School Y. She felt she had done all the chasing to find a school and get the SALT issue resolved, whereas the Council had been reactive rather than proactive. She disputed that the Council had challenged any of the school refusals.
41. The Council did not respond to her request until 13 December 2019 when it agreed to move to stage 2. Mrs D gave the Council a deadline of 17 January 2020 to complete the stage two. It did not meet this deadline and Mrs D complained to us in February 2020. By this time the Council had appointed a stage two investigating officer, but Mrs D wanted to wait for a response from us.
42. We sent the complaint back to the Council as premature at the end of February 2020 and asked the Council to complete its complaints process.
43. The Council produced an independent investigation report on 23 April 2020. This report made some recommendations including the Council should:
• consider whether the delay in obtaining an EP assessment caused B an injustice.
• clarify whether an annual review took place in March 2019.
• consider whether out-of-date information was sent to schools and if so whether this delayed finding a new school for B.
• revisit whether B received the therapies in his EHCP while he was out of school.
44. In respect of the SALT provision after March 2019, it noted that the Council had obtained a further SALT assessment which indicated B did not require direct SALT at home and SALT should be integrated into this curriculum once he was back in school. The Council said Mrs D agreed this with the SALT manager on the telephone and with the SALT during the assessment. The report noted that reference to the reassessment had been removed from the final EHCP.
45. The Council was unhappy with the quality of the report and commissioned a second investigation which was completed in June 2020.
46. This report concluded that the Council ‘s actions in respect of the EP assessment were reasonable: at the time Mrs D requested an EP assessment (April 2019) School Z had provided up-to-date information and there was an updated SALT assessment. After three months of consulting with schools the Council agreed to seek a new EP assessment, although Mrs D preferred the involvement of the EP from the adoption service who provided a summary of her views followed by a report, which was included in the EHCP.
47. In respect of the SALT assessment, the report agreed with the conclusions of the first investigator, that Mrs D had agreed that SALT was not required at home and should be delivered in school once a placement was found. Once B started at School Y, SALT recommenced. The report also concluded that the assessment done in April 2019 did not repeat previous tests, although there was uncertainty over one set of tests but, in any case, B scored within the average range on both occasions. It confirmed that the SALT assessment was based on the evidence and professional opinion and the provision of SALT was decreased with Mrs D’s full knowledge. However, give Mrs D’s complaint the Council agreed to remove the assessment from the EHCP and reassess the SALT at the next annual review. It made no recommendations in respect of the SALT.
48. The report also concluded that the consultation with schools could have been more streamlined which may have reduced the delay. But in the case of a child such as B with overlapping needs in different areas, it was useful to approach a variety of schools. Given the interplay between his speech and language needs and social, emotional and mental health needs, it was not unreasonable for the Council to consult with schools in both these areas.
49. In respect of the annual reviews in May 2018 and March 2019, it concluded that School Z as an independent school did not have to carry out an annual review. But on the basis of the information provided it concluded the Council had sufficient information to consider B’s needs had been reviewed. But it agreed the Council should have confirmed this with Mrs D.
50. The Council wrote to Mrs D on 6 July 2020 responding to the final investigation report. It agreed there was fault in the time it took to finalise the EHCP and that the delay contributed to the anxiety B and Mrs D were already experiencing. It apologised for that delay.
51. It offered £200 for the delay in finalising the EHCP for the months of June and July and added a further £300 for the anxieties caused by this. It said that the Council agreed with the following service recommendations:
• To consider streamlining its internal process for consulting with schools.
• To consider setting clear expectations to staff in respect of timeframes for signing off final EHCPs. Although in this case the Council continued to consult with schools throughout the period, so it did not have a detrimental effect on the process.
• To revisit training to staff in respect of the guidance and the specified timeframes within that guidance for completing EHCPs. Although in this case it would not have been beneficial to have finalised the EHCP while discussions with Mrs D were continuing.
• To review the process for annual reviews for children in non-maintained independent schools.
52. Mrs D remained unhappy and complained to us.

Analysis

failed to undertake an annual review of B’s EHCP in 2018 following a change in placement

53. B started at school Z in March 2018. School Z arranged a six-week review in May 2018 where it confirmed it could meet his needs and offered a permanent place. Mrs D and B were happy with the situation at this point. Mrs D only raised concerns about the fact it was not a proper annual review in 2019, after B had been excluded. The Council agrees it did not carry out a full annual review in 2018 but considers this was reasonable in the circumstances and there was sufficient information to review B’s needs at this point. I have not found fault with this conclusion.

did not amend or review B’s EHCP or obtain up to date professional reports in 2018, which led to placement failure in a second school in 2019 and continued to negatively impact on finding a suitable school placement from March to August 2019

54. There is no evidence to support Mrs D’s view that the failure to update the EHCP in 2018 lead to the placement failure in March 2019.
55. In March 2019, the annual review was overtaken by the emergency review following B’s exclusion. At this point the Council had one new SALT and two OT reports, along with a social worker report. The Council considered this information was sufficient to amend the EHCP and consult with other schools. Following discussion with Mrs D, it obtained a further SALT report and Mrs D provided an academic report form School Z and an assessment from mental health services. This information was used to amend the EHCP between March and June 2019 and to consult with 16 schools. 13 of the schools declined a to offer a place for differing reasons, one did not respond, and one offered an assessment which Mrs D declined. I have not concluded that the Council should have taken different action or that different action would have produce a different outcome.
56. I agree with the stage two investigation report, that after three months it was reasonable to obtain further information from an EP to enhance the EHCP. This coincided with the offer of a school place from School Y.
57. I have also considered that a full reassessment would have taken a similar amount of time and is not likely to have produced a school place any sooner.

failed to provide appropriate and sufficient education and support to meet B’s needs since March 2019 following his exclusion from school and provided tuition in an unsuitable location with no toilet facilities or space for B to have lunch

58. The amount of one-to-one tuition provided was only slightly less than the recommended 22 hours. Mrs D did not raise any issues with the location or amount tuition until the summer, by which time it was too late to change anything. I have not found fault with the Council’s actions here.

inappropriately removed Speech and Language (SALT) support between March and August 2019 and from B’s EHCP on the basis of an invalid assessment

59. B’s EHCP, prior to March 2019, provided for direct SALT support within a school setting. The school’s SALT report from February 2019 concluded that this provision was still appropriate. Following the emergency review in March 2019 the Council agreed to discuss interim provision with the SALT team. It did this the following day.
60. It is clear the Council’s intention was to provide SALT sessions in accordance with the EHCP and it took prompt action to achieve this. The SALT team’s view was that the provision was integrated into the curriculum in a school setting and so would be difficult to deliver at home. The team also had concerns about the quality of the school report and so decided to carry out its own assessment after speaking to Mrs D. At this stage its intention was still to provide SALT sessions but through an independent therapist.
61. The Council involved Mrs D in the assessment and concluded direct SALT therapy at home was not required, but it would review the situation when B was back in school. It sent the SALT report to Mrs D, and she did not raise concerns about the SALT’s view or the validity of the assessment until 11 June 2019. She did not raise concerns about the lack of SALT provision until she made a formal complaint in July 2019.
62. Throughout this period speech and language therapy remained as an educational provision in B’s EHCP, so the Council had a duty to ensure he received the provision. It was fault for the Council not to do so. There is a strict legal duty upon the Council and if it no longer felt the SALT provision was required at any point, we would have expected it to formally amend B’s EHCP instead. This would have provided Mrs D with the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal if she disagreed.
63. I have to decide on the balance of probabilities whether the fault caused an injustice to B which warrants a remedy. I have considered the view of the SALT team including the assessment in April 2019 and the information Mrs D sent to me before coming to my view on the injustice.
64. The speech and language assessment carried out in April 2019 was not invalid. Mrs D raised concerns in June 2019 that the assessment was invalid because it repeated tests. The therapist did not agree that tests were repeated and so did not agree the results were invalid. It is not my role to intervene or comment on professional opinions of officers, as long as they have followed the correct processes. As the team assessed B they followed the correct process and I cannot criticise their views.
65. In the end the Council removed the reference to the assessment from the EHCP; not because the Council considered it was wrong, but in an effort to work with Mrs D to finalise the plan and find a school place for B.
66. The Council believes that Mrs D agreed with the conclusions of the assessment at the time. Mrs D disputes this was the case and says she had to fight for SALT provision in his EHCP. She said the lack of peer socialisation and communication for that period without a SALT specialist doing therapy caused issues when B started his new school in September 2019, as he struggled to interact with his peers and unfamiliar adults. The EP report from 2019 said B’s specific language difficulties have a significant impact upon his ability to access and participate in the curriculum at the level of his ability particularly when he encounters higher level language.
67. I have found fault with the Council for not ensuring SALT provision was in place. But from the evidence, I have not concluded the fault caused B, a significant injustice because:
• The SALT team concluded, on the basis of a reassessment, that B only needed SALT when he was back in school.
• The SALT team believed Mrs D agreed with their conclusions and approach. Her initial emails were supportive.
• Mrs D did not raise the issue of lack of SALT provision until nearly the end of the summer term.
• The problems with language and communication in social groups, with peers and with higher level language were directly linked to being in school and accessing the curriculum in a school setting.
68. But the Council did cause some confusion during the complaints process over this issue: Initially the Council concluded there was fault in not providing SALT while B was out of school and offered Mrs D £500. But the Council changed its view at stage two and concluded there was no need for SALT until B returned to school, so it did not maintain its offer. I consider this was fault which caused Mrs D uncertainty and some time and trouble.

failed to undertake targeted consultation to identify a school placement that was appropriate and met B’s needs

69. I have not found fault with the Council’s initial efforts to consult with schools. It amended the EHCP promptly, obtained Mrs D’s agreement and started the search for a school in an emergency situation. The process became prolonged in part due to the frequent communications from Mrs D who understandably wished to provide as much accurate information as possible to get the most suitable school for B. But the length of time was also due to the failure to find a school who would offer B a place. There was some chaos in the approach to consultation, and I agree with the stage 2 investigation conclusions that it would be better to streamline that process for the future. However, I have not criticised the consultation itself: the Council approached a large number and type of schools, it noted Mrs D’s views on the most appropriate type of school for B and took advice from a specialist organisation which endorsed the Council’s approach. The Council also challenged two of the schools to provide more detailed reasons for not offering B a place.
70. But I have concluded the Council could have acted on Ms D’s suggestion of School Y at an earlier point: she first mentioned it on 23 May 2019, but the Council did not consult with it until 23 July 2019. If the Council had consulted sooner, it is possible School Y may have offered a place for B to start sooner than September 2020.

delayed issuing B’s final EHCP until September 2019, preventing Mrs D appealing to the SEND Tribunal

71. Mrs D was providing new information throughout the period and requesting amendments. The combined efforts of Mrs D and the Council resulted in a school place. I agree the Council took longer than the timescales set down in the guidance which was fault. But if the Council had sent a final EHCP and Mrs D had appealed, it is likely to have taken a lot longer to have secured a school place for B.

delayed for 12 months in responding to Mrs D’s complaints about these issues

72. There was an unacceptable delay by the Council from the end of August until December 2019 to agree to progress Mrs D’s complaint to stage two of the process and then the Council further delayed in starting the stage two investigation. The process should have been completed by the beginning of November at the latest (two months after escalation request), but it was not completed for a further eight months. This delay was exacerbated by the Council’s request for another stage two investigation. This was fault which caused Mrs D frustration and distress.
73. It is also disappointing to note that this is the third complaint about B’s educational provision, which Mrs D has had to make to us, and which we have upheld. She feels the same mistakes are being made repeatedly and this is having a cumulative adverse effect on B’s education and life-chances.

Back to top

Agreed action

74. I welcome the Council’s recognition that a payment is appropriate and its offer of £500 to put right the injustice caused to Mrs D and B. However, I considered that an increased payment and additional actions should be made. So, I recommended that (within one month of the date of my decision) the Council should:
• pay Mrs D £400 for the delay in dealing with her complaint, the fact she has had to complain a third time to the Ombudsman and for the poor complaint handling at stage two.
• pay Mrs D for the benefit of B’s education £500 for the uncertainty and distress arising from the delay in consulting with School Y.
• provide us with evidence it has reviewed or is reviewing its consultation process.
• take steps to ensure it completes reviews of EHCPs within the timescales laid down in statutory guidance.
75. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

76. I consider this is a proportionate way of putting right the injustice caused to Mrs D and B and I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman