Summary: Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his daughter, B’s transfer from a Statement to an Education, Health and Care Plan, her subsequent annual review and planning for her transition to adulthood. The Council has accepted fault. This fault caused Mr X and B significant distress and uncertainty. It meant B missed out on certain special educational and social care provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to B and her parents, make them each a payment and make several additional service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I shall refer to here as Mr X, complains, on behalf of his daughter, B, that the Council:
1. finalised B’s 2018/19 Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan without the agreement of B’s parents or including social care provision (in section D). He complains the Council failed to issue the Plan within the statutory timescales;
2. failed to apply the SEND Regulations 2014 within an annual review meeting;
3. incorrectly stated in its stage one complaint response letter that B’s parents requested a six-week delay in the completion of the EHC Plan;
4. issued a second draft EHC Plan in July 2019, which still did not contain any social care needs, or up to date Educational Psychologist (EP) information;
5. failed to complete a timely assessment of B’s social care needs;
6. failed to meet the commitments in the mediation agreement of July 2018;
7. failed to meet the timescales for holding the mediation meeting;
8. failed to plan for B’s transition to adult services. Specifically, he says the Council failed to make a timely referral to its transition team, to involve her parents in the process and closed B’s case without telling both parents;
9. following commitments made in its stage one complaint response, failed to write to Mr X within eight weeks to confirm the changes made to the Council’s Children’s Social Care to Adult Social Care policy;
10. failed to hold regular Child in Need meetings for B;
11. failed to communicate with parents/guardians of children with special educational needs (SEN) as required by law;
12. failed to provide B’s parents with information on the EHC Plan process and process for when a child is transitioning to adult services;
13. failed to ensure its procedures complied with the law. This was in terms of the EHC Plan review and transition to adult services process, ensuring adult social care input during annual reviews and fulfilling mediation agreement actions;
14. failed to ensure speech and language therapy (SALT) was included in the transition planning for B. This meant B missed out on this SALT;
15. failed to fully respond to Mr X’s complaint in its stage one response;
16. failed to offer B the support of an independent advocate; and,
17. changed B’s allocated respite hours specified in her EHC Plan without amending her Plan.
2. Mr X says B has been affected and at times deeply upset as her parents have attempted to negotiate in meetings for her care, provision, and wellbeing. Mr X says B remembers the mediation meeting and how upsetting that was for both her parents. He says it has impacted her mental health also.
3. Mr X says the delays have caused him a great deal of stress and distress. He says it has negatively affected his mental health. He says he and his family’s trust in the Council has been affected.
4. Mr X says he has gone to time and trouble seeking the services B needed to transition to adult services; and pursuing the complaint on behalf of B.

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. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
8. 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)
9. 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

10. I considered the information and documents provided by Mr X and the Council. I spoke to Mr X about his complaint.
11. Mr X and the Council both had the opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered all comments before making my final decision.
12. 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

What I found

What should have happened

Education, Health and Care Plans

13. 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 SEND Tribunal can do this.
14. 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.
15. By 1 April 2018, councils were required to transfer all children and young people with Statements of SEN who met the criteria for an EHC Plan. This transition process of transferring Statements to EHC plans is called a Transfer Review. This required an EHC needs assessment followed by the EHC Plan development.
16. Department for Education guidance in force at the time of the complained about matter was ‘Transition to the new 0 to 25 special educational needs and disability system: Departmental advice for local authorities and their partners’ (September 2015) (Transition Guidance). The Transition Guidance confirms the Transfer Review must be carried out in a timely manner. For Transfer Reviews started on or after 1 September 2015, the maximum timescale for completion of the transfer of the Statement to an EHC plan was extended to 20 weeks. There was a minimum two weeks’ notice period, followed by a maximum of 18 weeks for the Transfer Review. This applied in this case.

Annual reviews and planning transition to adulthood

17. The SEND Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years (the Code) published by the Government sets out what councils must do to support children with special educational needs (SEN). The Code says:

• EHC plans must be reviewed at least every 12 months;
• after a review, councils must tell the parents what actions they intend to take within four weeks; and,
• councils must ensure that EHC plan reviews from Year 9 (age 13-14) include a focus on preparing for adulthood, including possible further education. These reviews should result in clear outcomes which are ambitious and prepare young people for adulthood.

18. Under the SEND Code of Practice, to help a young person prepare for adulthood, councils should make sure the transition to adult care and support is “well planned, is integrated with the annual reviews of the EHC plans and reflects existing special educational and health provision that is in place”. This requires a transition assessment for adult care or support taking place as part of an annual review. Assessments for adult care or support must consider:

• current needs for care and support;
• whether the young person is likely to have needs for care and support after they turn 18; and,
• if so, what those needs are likely to be and which are likely to be eligible needs

Children’s Social Care complaints

19. The law sets out a three-stage procedure for councils to follow when looking at complaints about children’s social care services:

• stage one - Local Resolution
• stage two – Investigation by an independent investigator (IIO) with oversight by an independent person. The timescale for stage two is 25 days (with a maximum extension to 65 days). Councils should keep complainants updated on progress if there are delays (“Guidance on Getting the Best from Complaints”, 2006 (the Guidance))
• stage three – Review and Panel

20. If a council has investigated under this procedure, we would not normally re-investigate unless we considered that investigation flawed. However, we may look at whether a council properly considered the IIO’s findings and recommendations.
21. The Council decided to investigate Mr X’s complaints under the statutory complaints process.
22. The Ombudsman takes the view that complainants should exhaust the statutory complaints procedure before he will consider a complaint.
23. Annex 3 of the Guidance, however, describes the circumstances where a council can make an early referral to the Ombudsman. This can only happen if there has been a robust stage two report, the complaints have all been upheld and the majority of the complainant’s desired outcomes have been met. The Ombudsman decided to accept an early referral in this case as these criteria had been met.

What happened

24. Mr X’s daughter, B, has Downs Syndrome and a number of health conditions. She has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
25. During the period under consideration, B attended School G. B attended School G until summer term 2020.
26. In April 2017, the Council started B’s Statement of SEN Transfer Review.
27. In March 2018, the Council issued B’s first EHC Plan.
28. During summer term 2019, B turned 18 years old.
29. At the end of June 2019, Mr X complained to the Council about B’s Transfer Review process, transition to adulthood and the Council’s failure to progress actions agreed during a mediation meeting that took place in July 2018.
30. In October, the Council replied to Mr X’s stage one complaint.
31. In November, Mr X complained to the Council again.
32. In August 2020, the Council decided to consider Mr X’s complaint under stage two of the statutory complaints process. An Independent Investigating Officer (IIO) and Independent Person (IP) were appointed.
33. In November, the IIO completed her report.
34. In December, the Council sent Mr X its stage two adjudication letter and copy of the IIO and IP’s report.

Analysis – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Scope of the investigation

35. The law says we cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons (see paragraph eight above).
36. In this case, I have investigated matters from April 2017 onwards because, since this time, Mr X had not at any time allowed the matters complained of to rest for more than a few months.

B’s transfer from a Statement to an EHC Plan (April 2017 to March 2018)

37. Mr X complains the Council finalised B’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) without the agreement of her parents or including any social care provision (in section D). He complains the Council failed to meet the statutory timescales for finalising the 2018 EHC Plan (parts a and m of the complaint).
38. In April 2017, B’s Statement of SEN Transfer Review meeting took place. Mr X requested an EHC needs assessment, including an updated Educational Psychologist (EP) assessment and social care advice.
39. On 1 June, the Council emailed Mr X. It said it had to issue a final EHC Plan by 10 August 2017 to meet the 18-week statutory timescales for completion.
40. However, a final EHC Plan was not issued until the end of March 2018. This delay of over seven months is fault. This delay caused Mr X distress and uncertainty.
41. The IIO’s report found the Council:

• failed to finalise B’s Plan with the necessary advice and information from social care and an EP, as required by Regulation 6(1) of the SEN Regulations 2014 (parts a and m of the complaint). Section D of B’s final EHC Plan did not include B’s social care need. This was despite Mr X requesting this advice at the Transfer Review meeting and several occasions thereafter, including in January 2018 in his comments on the draft Plan; and
• failed to complete a timely assessment of B’s social care needs (parts e and m of Mr X’s complaint). This was not completed until September 2018; over a year after B’s Transfer Review should have been completed.

42. Regarding advice from social care and an EP, the Council accepted in its stage one complaint response there were delays due to uncertainty in its Assessment and Review team about this part of the new process. Mr X went to time and trouble chasing the Council to obtain the information. B missed out on a final EHC Plan that was fully informed by the necessary professional advice.
43. In its adjudication letter, the Council said it upheld part a of Mr X’s complaint. However, it said, regarding the lack of agreement from B’s parents: “wherever possible we work with parents/carers to co-produce [EHC Plans, but] on some occasions we must finalise EHCPs, without the agreement of parents/carers, … [to meet] our statutory timescales”. The Council had to complete all Transfer Reviews by 1 April 2018. The Council issued the final Plan to make this deadline. The IIO Report found the law allows councils to issue final Plans against the wishes of parents. I find the IIO and Council sufficiently responded to this point.
44. Regarding Mr X’s comments on the draft EHC Plan, the IIO upheld Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to apply SEND Regulations 2014 at the annual review meeting in March 2018 where his comments were discussed (part b and m of the complaint).
45. The Report explained, after receiving the draft EHC Plan in January 2018, Mr X requested a meeting with the Council to discuss the draft (Regulation 13 of the SEND Regulations). This meeting was not agreed to until early March. The final plan was issued two weeks later. The IIO said the Council was focused on meeting 1 April 2018 deadline rather than ensuring the plan met lawful requirements. The delay between January and March was fault. This caused Mr X further uncertainty.
46. Mr X subsequently complained the Council incorrectly said B’s parents requested a six-week delay in the completion of the EHC Plan (part c of the complaint).
47. The IIO upheld Mr X’s complaint. Mr X had requested an extension to provide his submissions for the Transfer Review; this was not the same as an extension to the statutory timescales. In any case, as explained above, the IIO found the main delays were due to fault by the Council.
48. In its adjudication letter, the Council said it had since increased capacity and improved systems so decisions about timescales changes were now made in line with statutory timescales. I am satisfied this action addresses the service issues.

Mediation meeting and agreement (July 2018)

49. In April 2018, Mr X requested a mediation meeting about B’s EHC Plan.
50. In July 2018, the Council held the mediation meeting. The mediation agreement shows the issues raised by Mr X concerned education and social care issues, but not health care provision. The issues discussed focused on: securing Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) provision, EP advice and social care advice.
51. The Council accepted the delay in arranging this meeting was fault (part g of the complaint). The meeting should have been arranged within 30 days from the date Mr X said he wished to pursue mediation (Regulation 36 of SEND Regulations). This caused B’s parents distress and uncertainty. It delayed the Council completing the agreed actions from the mediation.
52. The IIO and the Council both upheld Mr X’s complaint that the Council subsequently failed to meet the majority of the commitments in the mediation agreement within the agreed timescales (parts f and m of Mr X’s complaint). This was based on the following:

• the Council agreed its adult social care team would complete a care assessment by the time B reached 17 and a half years old. This meant the assessment should have taken place in January 2019; it did not take place until the autumn term 2019 when B was already 18 years old. The IIO identified a lack of understanding within the Council’s adult social care team regarding the mediation process and its role in EHC Plan development. The IIO found the adult social care team incorrectly said the mediation did not concern social care as it concerned B’s EHC Plan. This caused B’s transition to adult social care services to drift. This caused B and her parents distress and uncertainty;
• the Council agreed to hold an emergency review of B’s EHC Plan and issue an amended Plan. The IIO found no evidence the Council completed either action. Regarding the mediation agreement to issue an amended Plan, SEND Regulations 42 and 44 required the Council to issue this within five weeks of the agreement (as if the agreement were an order of the First-tier Tribunal). This did not take place. This denied B’s parents their right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. It caused them and B further uncertainty and distress; and,
• there was a notable drift in the Council’s progress around the mediation commitments and engagement with B’s parents.

53. However, the IIO found the Council’s children’s social services team began a Child in Need (CIN) assessment in July 2018. It issued a CIN Plan in September 2018 (four days after the mediation agreement deadline). I do not find this delay amounts to fault.

The Council’s planning and preparation of B’s transition to adulthood

54. The IIO report found the Council failed to plan for B’s transition to adult services (parts h and m of Mr X’s complaint). The Council accepted the IIO’s findings. This was based on the following:
1. in line with the SEND Code of Practice, the Council completed a transition assessment in February 2018. B was 16 years old. This identified B’s care and support needs, and that B would likely have these needs after she turned 18 years old. However, the Council failed to tell B’s parents this assessment had taken place or the action it would take. It failed to ensure the transition assessment informed B’s EHC Plan from March 2018;
2. since the mediation meeting July 2018, B’s parents had been chasing the Council for advice and information on the adult social care support B and her family could access. At this time, B’s personal assistant service through childrens service had broken down due to several significant events in the family’s life. In July 2019, B’s parents contacted the Council to say they were “in crisis and need more support”. However, B’s assessment of her adult social care needs under the Care Act 2014 did not take place until the autumn term 2019; several months after B had turned 18 years old. The IIO found the Council at fault here as the Council had missed opportunities to complete the assessment when it was of ‘significant benefit’ to B and, in any case, by the time B reached 17 and a half years old (as per the mediation agreement);
3. B’s transition assessment and CIN assessment from September 2018 confirmed B had identifiable needs that would require adult social care support. However, processes at the time meant the adult social care team rejected and closed two transition referrals from children’s social services. This was because B had no “active” support service in place and it was not accepting referrals before someone turned 18 years old at the time. The IIO found that this meant B’s transition to adult social services was effectively blocked, which caused B to suffer a ‘cliff edge’ in services as opposed to a smooth transition. The IIO found the Council in breach of the SEND Code of Practice and its Transition Protocol (April 2020), which says the transition assessment and the referral to adult social care should be completed by 17 years old; and,
4. the Council failed to fully involve B’s parents in the transition process and closed B’s referral cases without ensuring both B’s parents were informed.
55. The fault above caused B and her parents significant uncertainty about the social services she should access once she turned 18 years old. B’s parents went to significant time and trouble chasing the Council to obtain the necessary advice.
56. In its adjudication letter, the Council apologised to Mr X for the fault accepted. It said it had made key service improvements since Mr X’s complaint and the situation B experienced reflected previous practice. I have addressed the Council’s service improvements below in the section on recommended remedies.

Child in Need meetings held by the Council

57. Until B turned 18, she was considered a Child in Need (CIN) under Section 17 of the Children Act by virtue of her disability.
58. In April 2017, Mr X requested a CIN meeting for B to coordinate services as part of preparing and planning for B’s transition to adulthood. The IIO found the Council failed to hold the meeting, which the Council accepted. However, I would go further than this based on the following:

• extracts in the IIO Report from interviews with B’s social workers show, if the Council had arranged a CIN reassessment following Mr X’s request in April 2017, the Council would have placed B on a higher Tier of support sooner (Tier 3 instead of Tier 2). It is my understanding that this meant B should have received regular CIN meetings from this point onwards (as required for Tier 3 support). This did not take place and is fault (part j of the complaint); and
• the Council reassessed B’s needs in September 2018. As identified in the IIO’s report, had this taken place sooner and regular meetings took place from April 2017, this would have supported effective inter-agency working. It is likely this would have limited the issues with B’s transition and distress this caused.

Lack of advocate for B

59. Both the Council’s Transition Protocol (2020) and its procedures for CIN plans for children with short breaks packages state referrals for independent support or advocacy may be useful for young people moving towards adulthood.
60. The IIO found the Council failed to show it had regularly considered and offered B advocacy between 15 and 18 years old. The Council accepted the IIOs findings and it should have B offered an independent advocate (part p of the complaint).
61. However, the IIO’s report shows that B’s parents have consistently made significant efforts to ensure B’s voice was heard by advocating on her behalf and ensuring she was present during key meetings. This mitigated the injustice to B.
62. Since the IIO’s report, the Council has provided an independent advocate for B, which I find remedies the fault accepted by the Council.

The Council’s 2019 annual review

63. In July 2019, following a review by the Council of B’s Plan that same month, the Council sent B’s parents a draft amended EHC Plan and amendment notice letter.
64. The IIO upheld Mr X’s complaint the Council issued the draft EHC Plan without any social care needs in Section D of the Plan, or up to date EP information (parts d and m of the complaint). The draft EHC Plan also did not contain advice from adult social services even though B turned 18 years old that summer. The IIO said, based on interviews with staff members, the teams involved were unclear on what was expected of them as the process was quite new to them. This caused B and her parents distress and uncertainty. The Council accepted the IIO’s findings.
65. The Council’s amendment notice to B’s parents said “If we do not hear from you within the 15 day period or if you indicate … you agree to the changes … we will send you the amended Final EHC plan.” I have not seen any evidence the Council issued the final EHC Plan. Based on the IIO’s report and the Council’s response to our enquiries, the next final EHC Plan was issued in July 2020. This is fault. This denied B’s parents their appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal. B missed out on having a final 2019/20 EHC Plan in place for that academic year.

The Council’s provision of Speech and Language Therapy

66. The IIO upheld Mr X’s complaint the Council failed to ensure SALT was included in the transition planning for B (part n of the complaint). I find the IIO fully considered this matter. Based on the evidence, the Council was at fault because:

• there was a lack of coordination between children’s services and adult services about B transitioning to SALT provision with adult services. This was partly because there was a vacant post who should handle the referrals between the teams. This caused things to drift; and
• when B turned 18 years old in summer 2019, she was discharged from the Council’s children’s SALT services and SALT stopped. Her referral to SALT provision with adult services, however, had not been completed. This meant she found herself suddenly without this provision. This should not happen (as stated in the SEND Code of Practice). Instead, B was placed on a waiting list for SALT services until March 2020 when SALT restarted.

67. The Council has accepted this fault. It said the issues with its SALT commissioned services should not have led to B being without this service. I find this meant B missed out on SALT provision during autumn term 2019 and spring term 2020. I have recommended a suitable remedy below.

Changes by the Council to B’s allocated respite hours in 2020

68. Section H1 of B’s 2020/21 EHC Plan (issued July 2020) states B should receive certain social care provision through its commissioned service, Shared Lives. This service is where a carer opens up their home and family life to include B. B’s Plan specifies: B should receive eight sessional hours per week with a carer (16 hours per week in total to be used “flexibly”) and 28 nights respite per year.
69. In August 2020, Mr X received a letter from the Council saying it had reviewed its service arrangement with Shared Lives. The letter explained:

• any Plans stating hours could be used “flexibly” meant they are flexible within any given week only. This meant any unused weekly hours could no longer be banked or rolled over for later use. It said this meant any hours missed out on by the closure of its services due to COVID-19 could not be rolled over.

70. The IIO and Independent Person found the Council had failed to provide any record of how the Council had made this decision. There were no minutes of the meeting where the decision was made. The Ombudsman expects robust records of such decisions.
71. Based on the IIO’s report and the Council’s response to our questions, I understand, following a review of its service arrangements with Shared Lives, the Council decided the previous practice of allowing service users to roll over unused hours was not sustainable. It said such banked hours outstripped capacity and the practice of rolling over hours was not based on identified need. The letter was intended to clarify the meaning of “flexible”. In this instance, the Council said B’s assessed and allocated weekly hours would not have been affected by the change. She – and other service users - would still be able to access their weekly provision. On balance, I do not find the Council at fault here. I appreciate Mr X disagrees with the Council’s decision. However, it is entitled to review the sustainability of informal service arrangements in this way.
72. Mr X contacted the Council in September to express concerns that the impact of this decision would mean B’s social care needs would not be met. Given this, I would have expected the Council to have carried out an adult social care review. It indicated this possibility in its letter from August 2020. The Council did not do so until November 2020. This is fault. In February 2021, the Shared Lives Service Manager identified B had not accessed the service for a year meaning her provision needed to be updated. If the Council had carried out this review, on balance, it would have addressed the need for B’s provision to be updated earlier.
73. Following the Council’s review in November 2020, the Council agreed to find a personal assistant for B and B would have 28 nights respite with Shared Lives. However, based on the evidence I have seen, the Council encountered difficulties securing a personal assistant in late 2020 and this was ongoing until May 2021. This led to the Council considering other options with Shared Lives instead. I find this meant B missed out on her full social care provision during this time.

Information provided to parents/guardians about Council processes

74. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide B’s parents with information about the EHC Plan and transitioning to adulthood processes. (part l of the complaint)
75. Councils have certain duties around publishing information, advice and support for children, young people and parents. These include:

• establishing an impartial Information, Advice and Support Service (referred to as SENDIASS) for parents in relation to SEN. The information offered should be in accessible formats that are responsive to the needs of users; and
• publishing information, advice and support related to SEN and disabilities, as well as how this can be accessed and how it is resourced, in its “Local Offer”.

76. The IIO found the Council did not have any clear, accessible documents on the EHC Plan and transition processes that it could share with parents/guardians. The IIO found that the staff who were interviewed said that the information provided around the EHC Plan process and transitioning to adulthood could be improved. This is fault, which the Council has accepted.
77. The IIO found the Council’s Local Offer page was not user friendly. The Report found the page required the user to be computer literate and have access to a computer. I have considered the Council’s Local Offer page. In my view, the Council’s Local Offer information around preparing for adulthood is largely a directory of links to existing services (which is at odds with the SEND Code of Practice). There is no clear information on the transition to adulthood process or the provision available to assist in preparing children/young people for adulthood. (SEND Code of Practice, paragraph 4.30). This is fault.
78. B and her parents missed out on having clear, accessible information on the services potentially available to her as she transitioned to adulthood. This was particularly so for Mr X as he does not use the internet and struggles with computer-based communications. The Council’s lack of clear advice and information caused Mr X uncertainty and distress.
79. The IIO recommended the Council ensures it has appropriate, up to date literature available to all front-line staff on the transition to adulthood and EHCP processes. This is so they can be provided to parents at the earliest opportunity. The IIO recommended the Council ensures this information is available in a variety of formats, including so this meets the needs of certain disabilities. The Council said it has added this recommendation to its SEND Improvement Plan. It is developing information toolkits on transitioning to adulthood for children, young people, parents and carers. The Council has not set a timescale for completing the toolkits. This means Mr X and other families are still missing out on this.

Council’s communication with parents/guardians

80. Mr X complains the Council failed to communicate with parents/guardians of children with SEN as required by law (part k of the complaint).
81. I appreciate Mr X is mainly concerned there is no Parent Carer Forum. However, the SEND Code of Practice does not require the Council sets one up; rather councils are encouraged to work with them if established. (SEND Code of Practice, paragraph 1.13) I do not find fault by the Council here.
82. The SEND Code of Practice states councils must ensure that children, their parents and young people are involved in decisions about local provision. This includes providing them with the chance to submit comments during reviews of the Local Offer (SEND Code of Practice, paragraph 4.8).
83. The Council said in its adjudication letter that it fulfils these requirements through:

• its Family Information Service’s (FIS) mailing list so parents/carers can receive its ‘What’s New on the Local Offer’ newsletter. I understand families who are signed up to The Disabled Children's Register receive this newsletter by email. The FIS internet page shows the service also offers monthly drop-in sessions for parents and carers to discuss Local Offer-related services;
• making efforts to engage parents/carers though various ongoing opportunities (including the recent development of an Engagement and Participation Strategy, which had significant involvement of the SEND Youth Forum); and,
• the appointment of a SEND Participation Officer to lead on the Council’s engagement work and ensure accessibility for all parents/carers.

84. I find the Council has demonstrated the ways it has decided to ensure compliance with the requirements around the involvement of parents and young people in the local provision decision-making processing. What is not clear, however, is how Mr X may sign-up to the FIS’s Local Offer newsletter or access the information provided on the FIS internet page as someone who does not use the internet and struggles with computer-based communications. I am not persuaded the Council has considered whether it can offer this in a format that is accessible to Mr X. This is fault. Mr X has missed out on accessing the information.

Complaint handling

85. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his stage one complaint. (parts i and o of the complaint)
86. Both the Council and the IIO found the Council:
1. failed to send Mr X information on updates made to its Children’s Social Care to Adult Social Care transitions policy. It committed to do this in its stage one complaint response. The Council provided this during the meeting in December 2020, which remedies the fault here; and
2. failed to fully respond to Mr X’s complaint in its stage one response. The IIO report addressed the outstanding points. I find this remedied the injustice.
87. The IIO report noted how long the stage one process took: the Council sent its stage one complaint response in October, over three months after Mr X’s complaint. The Council apologised for the delay in its stage one response, which I find remedies the uncertainty caused to Mr X by this delay.
88. In November 2019, Mr X told the Council he was not satisfied with its stage one response. He set out details of the issues he considered outstanding.
89. In August 2020, the Council escalated Mr X’s complaint to stage two of the statutory complaints process.
90. Under the statutory complaints process, the Guidance says, for complex complaints such as Mr X’s, a council has up to a maximum of 65 working days to produce the IIO’s report and its own adjudication on the IIO’s findings. This meant Mr X should have received his stage two complaint response, including the IIO and IP’s reports, by 8 January 2020. However, the Council did not send these documents until December 2020. This delay is fault. This caused Mr X and B further stress and uncertainty.
91. The Council’s adjudication letter provides its response to the IIO Report and decision on each point of complaint. The Council separately created an action plan identifying the IIO’s and Independent Person’s recommendations and a timescale for completing certain actions.
92. However, I do not find the Council clearly communicated to Mr X any action to be taken. This is fault. This caused Mr X and B a further period of uncertainty about how and whether the injustice experienced would be remedied.
93. During my investigation, it came to my attention that B’s mother, Ms Y, who B lived with for most of the period under consideration, was also affected by the Council’s failure to prepare and plan for B’s transition to adulthood and the fault identified around B’s transfer review and subsequent annual review. This caused Ms Y significant stress and uncertainty. I have recommended a remedy below.

Back to top

Agreed action

94. Following the Council’s adjudication letter, the Council offered Mr X and B a payment of £250 each for the injustice caused. However, I do not find this sufficiently remedies the injustice caused. Within four weeks of my decision, the Council has, therefore, agreed to:
1. apologise in writing to Mr X for the fault causing injustice. If not already provided, this should include information on how Mr X may sign-up to the Family Information Service’s Local Offer newsletter;
2. apologise in writing to B for the fault causing injustice. To meet B’s disability-related needs, the Council should consider providing this in large font (size 14) and Easy Read format;
3. apologise in writing to B’s mother, Ms Y, for the fault causing injustice;
4. make a payment to Mr X of £400 for the significant time and trouble he went to trying to put things right for B and the distress and uncertainty caused (this includes the payment already offered by the Council);
5. make a payment to Ms Y of £400 for the significant distress and uncertainty caused to her, particularly regarding B accessing adult social care provision;
6. make a payment to B of £700 for the significant distress and uncertainty caused to her due to the fault in her Transfer Review and subsequent annual reviews, and for missing out on: a properly planned transition to adulthood and adult services, a timely Care Act 2014 transition assessment and personal assistance social care provision (between November 2020 and May 2021). This includes the payment already offered by the Council.

The Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies says a payment for distress is often a moderate sum of between £100 and £300. In cases, such as this, where the distress was severe and prolonged (much of the fault occurred over two years), a higher payment may be awarded. I consider the higher payments of £400 and £700 to be in line with this.

7. makes a payment to B of £1,200 for the loss of SALT provision (made up of £600 for the autumn term 2019 and £600 for the spring term 2020). This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, which states: where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £600 to £1,800 per term.
7. Since Mr X’s complaint, the Council told us it has made the following service improvements:

• invested in its EHC hub, which manages compliance with the statutory processes and timescales;
• created an Annual Review Strategy to identify good practice guidance;
• reviewed and updated its Preparing for Adulthood transition policy (removing the previous stipulations that affect B’s transition. This is now offered to anyone likely to have needs for adult care and support after turning 18 years old);
• provided a reminder to relevant staff of the importance of mediation meetings and attending these to remain compliant with the SEND Codes of Practice;
• developed an Engagement & Participation Strategy, to ensure the voice of children, young people and parents/carers are embedded in the local area SEND system; and,
• developed a Preparation for Adulthood (PfA) steering group, which works on the Council’s PfA Strategy. It is engaged in: ensuring better coordination between teams, monitoring the quality and range of support for children and young people with SEND, and ensuring PfA is embedded in Council policies.

96. The Council has taken significant action to resolve the issues identified through Mr X’s complaint. However, within three months of my decision, the Council has also agreed to make the following service improvements:
1. review and update its guidance to staff on mediation to ensure full compliance with statutory processes and expectations;
2. finalise and publish the information toolkits on transitioning to adulthood and the EHC Plan processes;
3. carry out a sample review of the last two months of Transition referrals to adult social services to ensure young people are transitioning in accordance with policy and legislation. This was recommended in the IIO’s report; 
4. send a reminder to relevant staff on the circumstances where children and young people should be offered an independent advocate;
5. review its Local Offer to ensure there is an accessible version for individuals who struggle with IT/internet access and the section on transitioning to adulthood complies with the SEND Code of Practice; and,
6. share this decision with relevant staff, including those involved in the statutory complaints decision-making process.
97. The Ombudsman will need to see evidence that these actions have been completed.

Back to top

Final decision

98. I have completed my investigation. I have decided to uphold each point of Mr X’s complaint. This is because there is fault by the Council causing injustice. The Council has agreed to the above recommendations, which are suitable ways for the Council to fully remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman