Summary: We found no fault on Ms J’s complaint about the Council failing to: ensure her daughter received provision set out in her Education, health, and care plan for two years; ensure her reintegration back into the classroom; make alternative education provision. There was fault in the first stage handling of her complaint. The agreed action remedies the injustice this caused.

The complaint

1. Ms J complains the Council failed to ensure:
1. her daughter, K, received the provision set out in her Education, health, and care plan over a period of two years;
2. steps were taken for her reintegration back in to the classroom;
3. she received appropriate alternative education; and
4. it carried out a proper investigation of her complaint about its failures.
2. As a result, her daughter has not received the education she needed, Ms J had to leave work because of the lack of provision, all of which is causing financial hardship, disruption, and distress as she has had to educate her herself.

Back to top

What I have investigated

3. The paragraph at the end of this statement explains why I have not investigated any complaint Ms J may have about the school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. This complaint involves events occurring during the Covid-19 pandemic. The government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether the Council followed the relevant legislation and guidance and our published ‘Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19’.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’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)
6. 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)
7. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
8. 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

Alternative provision: Statutory guidance for local authorities (January 2013)

9. Councils are responsible for arranging suitable education for permanently excluded pupils, and for others who, because of illness or other reasons, would not receive suitable education without such arrangements being made.
10. Good alternative provision is that which appropriately meets the needs of pupils which required its use and enables them to achieve good educational attainment to the same standard as their mainstream peers.
11. Councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils who are out of school because of exclusion, illness, or for other reasons, if they would not receive suitable education without such arrangements. The provision generally should be full-time unless it is not in the child’s interests. (Education Act 1996, section 19)
12. This applies to all children of compulsory school age living in the local council area, whether or not they are on the roll of a school.
13. Suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability, and aptitude and to any special educational needs he or she may have.
14. The law does not define full-time education but, children with health needs should have provision equal to the education they would receive in school. If they receive one-to-one tuition, for example, the hours of face-to-face provision could be fewer as the provision is more concentrated.

Back to top

Education, health and care plans

15. The Coronavirus Act 2020 temporarily changed the duty in section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to arrange or secure the special educational need provision in an Education, health and care plan (EHC plan). The change meant the absolute duty to secure or arrange provision was changed between March and July 2020 to a requirement to use ‘reasonable endeavours’ to do so.
16. Government guidance, ‘Supporting vulnerable children and young people during the coronavirus outbreak – actions for educational providers and other partners’ (in force between March and August 2020) said education providers and councils should identify vulnerable children and young people, (including those not in education, those with EHC plans, and those who are classed as vulnerable at the discretion of the council) and consider how best to support their welfare and education both remotely and on-site. There should be a risk assessment.
17. The Children and Families Act 2014 sets out support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice’ (the Code) gives more details about how councils, schools, and others should carry out their duties.
18. A child with special educational needs may have an EHC plan. This sets out the child’s needs and how they should be met. The EHC plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about education or the setting named. Only the SEND tribunal can do this.
19. Councils must ensure EHC plan provision is met. We can look at complaints about this. We can investigate where a council has not ensured provision, or where there have been delays in the process.
20. The Code says councils must review EHC plans at least yearly. The review should focus on a child’s progress towards achieving the plan outcomes and consider whether the outcomes and supporting targets remain appropriate. Councils can consider holding an early review if there is a change in the child’s circumstances.
21. The Code says EHC plan reviews are generally most effective when led by a child’s school as they will know the child best and have most contact with their family. It explains councils should provide a list of children and young people who will need a review of their EHC plan that term to the heads of their schools.
22. Unofficial exclusions and long-term part-time timetables which are not part of a clear path for reintegration in to full time education are unlawful.
23. The Ombudsman expects councils to have systems in place to check provision in an EHC plan has been secured and is being provided to a child or young person (‘Not going to plan? Education, Health and Care Plans two years on?’) We usually expect straightforward provision to be in place within no more than four weeks and complex provision to be available within no more than half a term.
24. The Ombudsman recognises it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools are providing all the special educational provision for every pupil with an EHC plan. The Ombudsman considers councils should be able to demonstrate due diligence in discharging this important legal duty and as a minimum have systems in place to:

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or substantially different EHC plan is issued or there is a change in placement;
• check the provision at least annually via the review process; and
• investigate complaints or concerns that provision is not in place at any time.

25. We issued guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to provide education for children who, for whatever reason, do not attend school full-time. (Out of school… out of mind? How councils can do more to give children out of school a good education, published in 2016)
26. We made six recommendations. Councils should:

• consider the individual circumstances of each case and be aware that a council may need to act whatever the reason for absence (except for minor issues that schools deal with on a day-to-day basis) – even when a child is on a school roll;
• consult all the professionals involved in a child's education and welfare, taking account of the evidence in coming to decisions;
• decide, based on all the evidence, whether to require attendance at school or provide the child with suitable alternative education;
• keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing it if a child's capacity to learn increases;
• adopt a strategic and planned approach to reintegrating children into mainstream education where they can do so; and
• put whatever action is chosen into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

27. This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Coronavirus Act 2020 allowed the Secretary of State to temporarily change existing legal requirements and issue guidance about provision of education for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Risk assessments

28. On 23 March 2020, schools in England closed to most pupils as part of the first national lockdown, apart from children of key workers and those who were vulnerable. The government asked councils to carry out risk assessments to decide whether children and young people considered vulnerable, including those with an EHC plan, should stay at home or go into school.
29. When the government issued this guidance, councils still had a duty to ensure the provision in an EHC plan was in place. But the guidance noted it may be difficult to do so, for example, where the school was shut or could not open safely, or where parents had chosen to keep the child at home and agreed temporarily that the child would not be accessing education at the school.

Providing the support in an EHC plan

30. In an open letter to councils and education providers issued on 24 March 2020, the Department for Education advised it would be introducing temporary emergency legislation changing councils’ duties about EHC plans. It said the overall aim was to, “balance the needs of this vulnerable group to receive the support they needed with managing the demands on councils and health bodies to respond to the pandemic”.
31. On 1 May, the Secretary of State issued a notice under the Coronavirus Act to give more flexibility to councils in dealing with EHC plans and provision. It changed councils’ absolute duty to ‘secure’ the education provision in an EHC plan to one of using ‘reasonable endeavours’ to do so. This was a temporary change applying from 1 May to 31 July 2020. At the end of this period, councils’ usual duties returned.
32. The guidance noted it may be difficult to provide all elements of support in an EHC plan, for example where the child is not attending their education placement or services are reduced through illness or other COVID-19 related restrictions.
33. In deciding what provision could and could not be made the council had to consider:
• specific local circumstances and workforce capacity;
• the needs and specific circumstances of the child or young person; and
• the views of the child, young person, and their parents, about what may be appropriate.
34. If it was not possible to arrange or secure full provision detailed in an EHC plan, factors to be considered included the availability of those who should deliver what is needed and whether anything could be done differently to deliver provision.
35. The guidance provided examples of the types of alternative arrangements that may be made including: moving to a part-time timetable; change in placement to another school; reduced class sizes; specialist teachers providing advice and support to parents; and widening the use of personal budgets or direct payments to enable purchase of equipment to support home learning.
36. The council had to keep a record of the provision it decided it must secure or arrange. It should then have:
• confirmed to the parents or young person what it had decided to do and explain why the provision differed from what was set out in the EHC plan.
• kept decisions under review, with an early review if necessary if the child or young person’s needs changed.
37. On 5 January 2021, the government announced schools in England would close until at least mid-February, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Schools remained open for vulnerable children, including those with EHC plans. Schools were closed to most children until 8 March.
38. The government issued guidance to schools on 7 January. This said:

“Where a pupil has provision specified within their EHC plan, it remains the duty of the local authority and any health bodies to secure or arrange the delivery of this in the setting that the plan names. However, there may be times when it becomes very difficult to do so, for example, if they are self-isolating. In this situation, decisions on how provision can be delivered should be informed by relevant considerations including, for example, the types of services that the pupil can access remotely, for example, online teaching and remote sessions with different types of therapists. These decisions should be considered on a case-by-case basis, avoiding a one size fits all approach.”

39. In a letter to children and their families published on 14 January, the government said where it became more difficult to deliver provision in an EHC plan:

“… education settings, local authorities and health partners (where applicable) should discuss with families to co-produce alternative arrangements for delivering provision. These decisions should be considered on a case-by-case basis which takes account of the needs of and circumstances specific to the child or young person, avoiding a one size fits all approach.”

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

40. I considered all the information Ms J sent, the notes I made of our telephone conversation, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, a copy of which I sent her. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Ms J and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

41. Ms J has an 11-year-old daughter, K, who attended a local primary school. She complains about the lack of education provision since 2020 for K under her EHC plan. She claims K has had almost no education at school for two years. As a result, Ms J says she left work to home educate K.
42. I now look at each of her complaints:

Complaint a): Lack of provision

School year March to July 2020

43. K, who was in year 4 at school, had a draft EHC plan at the time the government placed the country in lockdown. This required all school children to remain home apart from those who were vulnerable. It asked all councils to carry out a risk assessment to identify if vulnerable children should go to school anyway or remain at home.
44. At this time, the Council became aware K was missing some education because of the pandemic as the school considered she posed a significant risk to staff and other children. It worked with the school to complete the risk assessment. The risk assessment noted how: K struggled in the past year to engage with the school and had full 1:1 support since September 2019, including breaks and at lunchtimes; she was highly anxious in school. Due to restrictions in school, and new policies about behaviour, the assessment decided the risk was too high to have K in school. Ms J disagreed.
45. The Council sought the adaptation of the risk assessment to do this. K’s behaviour became more dysregulated (a difficulty regulating emotions).
46. In April, the Council issued K with the final EHC plan naming the school. It would review it in April 2021. Section F of it set out the education provision which included: weekly social skills support as part of small group for at least 30 minutes; increased structure during play or lunchtimes to increase predictability; support or scaffolding when she experiences difficulties; staff to give her time to process instructions; repetition of instructions by adults; instructions given using short and concise language;
47. The school consulted the educational psychologist about what it could do to support children while at home but, the support was limited because of restrictions.
48. Ms J says her daughter received no provision set out in the EHC plan or any education following the national curriculum, between March to June.
49. In June, the risk assessment was reviewed. The school wrote to Ms J with a EHC plan summary plan explaining it will provide: 1:1 zoom tutoring; support at home from the occupational therapist; 1:1 learning support assistant; support for K’s transition back to school. It explained it was using all ‘reasonable endeavours’ to meet her EHC plan provision. It also noted the SENDCo (the person responsible for the day-to-day operation of the school’s special educational needs policy) liaised with agencies to find out what support could be given to the family over the telephone or video consultations. The educational psychologist helped mediate between the school and Ms J and helped develop a transition plan for K’s return to school in July and September.
50. The plan explained how it would try and meet the EHC plan provision through 1:1 zoom daily one hour zoom sessions and through her 1:1 contact with the learning support assistant. These would try and meet the provision in the plan such as help completing written tasks with support, help with her social and emotional and mental health. Other provision set out in her EHC plan dealing with her sensory and physical needs would be met when she was back in school.
51. From June to July, Ms J says K received one hour a day support through zoom. This increased to a two-week transition plan amounting to just over six hours over six days but not in the classroom.
52. In July, Ms J contacted the Council and there was a risk assessment and transition zoom meeting with her and the school. She later called again about the ‘provision map’ the school sent her which she felt did not match the provision in the EHC plan. She had concerns about this as parts were not compatible with the EHC plan and not recommended by the educational psychologist. Ms J agreed K would go back to school on the transition timetable.
53. In terms of provision, the school says between March and July 2020: there was online home learning resources, weekly telephone calls to see what other support was needed, home learning pack of resources and from June, 1:1 tutoring for home learning for 1 hour a day.

My findings

54. It is useful to set out the Council’s responsibilities to K. It had a duty to arrange the provision set out in the EHC plan under section F. It also had a duty to make alternative arrangements for her education if she would not otherwise receive suitable education.
55. It is important to set these out as they are separate from the school’s responsibilities towards K, over which we have no jurisdiction. On balance, I found no fault on this complaint. In reaching this view, I took the following into account:
1. During the first lockdown (March to July 2020), the Council had to use reasonable endeavours in terms of EHC plan provision. The final EHC plan was issued in April. This is the date the Council’s responsibility starts for ensuring the provision it set out was met.
2. A risk assessment was done in line with government guidance which decided the risk of K attending school was too high. The Council was aware of the problem with K as Ms J told it in May about the school refusing to have her in class and not giving her specific work to do.
3. The school clearly thought it could not meet all the needs set out in the EHC plan because some of it required her to be physically present in the classroom. This was not possible because of national restrictions. Some of it could be met through 1:1 zoom daily sessions.
4. There was evidence of liaison between the Council, the school, and Ms J along with the preparation of a transition plan. Later, there was evidence of liaison between the school and the educational psychologist about making a transition plan for K’s return to school.
5. Between April and July, the Council had to use reasonable endeavours to secure K with her educational provision under the EHC plan. I consider it met this requirement during this period. For example, during June and July, there was evidence of a daily zoom 1:1 tutor call with K and evidence of a EHC plan summary of provision arrangements for K. While I appreciate this was not all the provision required under the EHC plan, I am satisfied the Council met its duty to use reasonable endeavours to provide K with what it could, particularly as the risk assessment said K returning to school posed too high a risk to staff and other children.

School year September 2020 to July 2021

56. In September, K went back to school on a different transition timetable to support her starting Year 5 but, Ms J was concerned it was minimal schooling. She complains K was not brought back in to the classroom but the same month, an occupational therapist did observe K in class.
57. In October, Ms J contacted the Council, concerned the school was not implementing the EHC plan. She was not in class and nor was she following the curriculum. She was also unhappy K had 1:1 with four different tutors a day rather than the specified one. The school made a referral to the Bristol Autism Team (BAT) which is a Council service.
58. The following month she again raised concerns about the school not making the provision set out in the EHC plan. I have seen a document titled ‘EHCP provision progress update-25/11/20’. This noted K: found it very difficult to engage with learning in the classroom; becomes very upset and dysregulated after just five minutes in it; cannot sit quietly in it; can sometimes engage with her work when sitting at her quiet workstation outside the classroom with 1: 1 support; getting her to spend more time in the classroom needed increasing very gradually to prevent further anxiety; her being on a full timetable but had missed days due to illness and anxiety; what was being achieved and provided against the EHC plan’s needs.
59. In December, the school consulted the educational psychologist about supporting K who advised about a phased return to school. K stopped attending school the same month. The Council notes there was another lockdown, and a further risk assessment was done. Ms J says the lockdown began in January 2021. The drew up a full-time timetable. During term 3, and part of term 4, K remained at home and did not go back to school. Instead, she did remote learning only.
60. The school said all provision within the EHC plan was in place, but it was not always successful. This was because of K’s dysregulation, or anxiety levels, as well as prolonged periods of absence. It employed two full time learning support assistants to support K and all staff were trained by BAT.
61. Between January to March 2021, K had a full-time place within school, but Ms J refused it. K remained at home doing remote learning. During this time, the school was closed because of another national lockdown. The school’s records show K attended just over 50% of the time.
62. The school contacted BAT in January for advice about dealing with pathological demand avoidance and anxiety. It agreed to take on K’s case. BAT gave staff at the school training about working with K and giving her support. The school waited for BAT to have capacity to come and observe K. BAT made various recommendations to the school to help her.
63. The school also referred K to the Speech and Language therapy (SALT) drop-in session for support with her communication needs. The therapist told Ms J as there were no language difficulties, she could only offer support for strategies when in school.
64. In February, an educational psychologist held a virtual meeting with Ms J and the school. This was to contribute to the annual review meeting. The observations carried out of K were online. Ms J believed the school was not properly addressing K’s needs.
65. The annual review noted Ms J’s claim K had been excluded from the classroom with no attempt to reintegrate her back in. K was on a full-time timetable but missed several weeks due to illness and anxiety. She was not in school at all in term 3. It noted how difficult she found it in the classroom and gets dysregulated after five minutes. She had not completed any curriculum work in the classroom that term but, had been spending more time at school.
66. The annual review made further recommendations to the plan. These included a transition plan back to school. The aim was over 9 weeks, K would gradually return to school.
67. In March, K was diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Condition. In terms of provision, the school says between January and March 2021, there was still online learning, regular correspondence with the class teacher, 1:1 learning support assistant twice weekly zoom sessions.
68. Ms J says it was not until May that K returned to school after an absence of six months with no education or EHC plan provision. When she returned, she had a part time table of two hours, three times a week. A senior specialist autism teacher from BAT observed K in class and met the school and Ms J on zoom. BAT attended meetings to discuss her return to the school plan and chaired weekly review meetings to look at part time timetable provision and strategies.
69. A re-integration meeting and home tuition of English and Maths were arranged, planned with the school. BAT recommended alternative learning provision. It suggested she attend two afternoon sessions to build up confidence going back to school with 1:1 tuition for one hour the following week. The school suggested alternative learning providers. BAT agreed to sit in on the tuition sessions following Ms J’s concerns about them. When tuition broke down, BAT offered to contact the Alternative Learning Provision team (ALP team). Ms J says the school failed to implement all of BAT’s recommendations.

My findings

70. I found no fault on this complaint and in reaching this decision, took the following into account:
1. The evidence shows attempts were made to ease K back in to school. There were transition plans, for example. While I appreciate Ms J wanted K back in the classroom, it is clear there were problems in doing so as she struggled being in class.
2. I am satisfied a full-time place at the school was still offered and there was support provision.
3. There was an awareness of the problems K faced, input from BAT and the psychologist about resolving them. There was also an annual review. This came up with another transition plan. If Ms J was unhappy with the outcome of the review, she could have challenged it.
4. Towards the end of this period, K made a further attempt to get back in to school but, this was not successful. After this, BAT recommended she have alternative provision and steps were taken to find it.
5. There was an awareness of K’s problems and efforts were made to get wider advice about how she could return to school. When this failed, searches for alternative provision started. When alerted to problems, the Council reviewed the situation.

September 2021 to July 2022

71. In September, a BAT report noted K had been on several part time timetables with various strategies but was spending about 10% of a school day in the classroom which often led to dysregulation. A large number of online tuition sessions led to dysregulation with the sessions often not being completed. Its extensive recommendations included: a setting where there is a small class size of up to ten pupils and about one adult for every three pupils; a highly personalised and adapted curriculum matched to her interests; appropriately trained staff who can support her once a week for 20 minutes; a weekly 15–30-minute paired work session.
72. The report also noted K returned to school in April on a very reduced part-time time table and spent a significant amount of time outside the classroom as she found the mainstream environment overwhelming. This said the school would set short term targets for K in consultation with the parents and professionals. She should be in a setting where there are small class sizes of up to 15 pupils. She would have a weekly 15–30-minute paired work session and weekly social skills support as part of a small group for at least 30 minutes to develop communication and thinking skills. She will be in school full time accessing an appropriately differentiated learning environment. She was to have a highly personalised and adapted curriculum. Her reintegration to a classroom needed careful planning.
73. The annual review was to be held in September but did not go ahead as Ms J refused to continue with the meeting once it started. She says she did not participate as she felt the previous one was ineffective.
74. Ms J confirmed K started to attend an alternative provider for 90 minutes a week as recommended by BAT but it had no educational input. She claims the school did not organise it.
75. In October, it arranged to meet the ALP team. BAT helped plan the afternoon sessions. Ms J says she removed K from school on the advice of BAT. This is because in its report, BAT recommended she needed a ‘specialist learning environment’. Ms J continued to take her to the alternative provider.
76. Ms J says the Council suggested interim EOTAS (education otherwise than at school) instead of re-integration back to school. Ms J refused the Council’s suggestion.
77. K started at another alternative provider. She says this was a therapeutic setting with virtually no educational input. K went there 11 hours a week. This was for 5.5 hours a day but with minimal education content.
78. In December, the school wrote to Ms J following a meeting the month before and had now received both the draft and final version of the EHC plan. A member of the school staff was ready to resume online tuition.
79. In January 2022, the Council invited Ms J to an ALP meeting to discuss alternative provision and school provision. I have seen a record which sets out what K did at an alternative provider for six weeks which involved horses. Ms J confirmed K started with a tutor for three hours a week (4.5 hours by March) but claimed the tutor did not attempt to deliver the appropriate educational work to K.
80. The school also reminded Ms J of its full time 1:1 Learning support assistant in school every day.
81. In February, a report from another provider, a learning centre, was issued following her attendance there.
82. The Council invited her to another meeting in March and the same month offered K a place at an independent specialist school but a few days later apologised as there was no offer from this school.
83. She complains she received no explanation from the Council about why K was in alternative provision. She argues the school agreed social visits for K in November 2021 but refused to implement them. K also did not sit her SATs this year.
84. The evidence shows the alternative provision was paid for by the school.
85. The Council confirmed after the EHC plan was finalised, a placement in an independent non-maintained school was secured which was Ms J’s preference. Ms J says it is not her preference but merely the only and closest school that can meet K’s needs. It is 25 miles away.

My findings

86. On balance, I found no fault on this complaint. In reaching this conclusion, I took the following into account:
1. An annual review in September 2021 was started but Ms J refused to participate in the meeting.
2. The EHC plan was updated in December.
3. The BAT report took account of the part-time time tables K had and the volume of dysregulation occurring during school and online sessions. The report recommended smaller groups for her.
4. The evidence shows from February 2022, K received 1:1 tutor sessions three times a week lasting about 90 minutes. This continued until May.
5. K started attending alternative providers as recommended by BAT which were monitored.
6. The Council considered educating her other than at school, but Ms J refused this suggestion.

Unofficially excluded

87. Ms J claims K was unlawfully excluded from the classroom both by the outcome of the risk assessment and teaching her 1:1 outside of the classroom.
88. The Council said it was aware of her concerns, followed Covid-19 guidance, and completed and shared a risk assessment with her and the school to try and resolve concerns. The school says K had two fixed term exclusions but, Ms J believes other absences, such has her not bringing her to school, and time spent outside of the classroom, amount to exclusions.
89. The school also explained under the EHC plan, K had to have a safe space outside of the classroom.

My findings

90. I found no evidence of K being unlawfully excluded from the classroom. The evidence shows she was dealt with outside the classroom because she struggled to cope inside the classroom.

Reintegration

91. Ms J says there was no proper attempt to reintegrate K back in to the classroom.
92. The school said this was not true and explained strategies it had in place to help her back in to the classroom. Due to long periods of absence, it worked with the educational psychologist and family to discuss reintegration. A reduced timetable was developed to help her transition back to school. At first, this was successful but after the second lockdown, and absence from December 2020 to March 2021, K missed a considerable amount of time from school. A reduced timetable was agreed for September which remains in place. Reintegration is a gradual process.

My findings

93. I found no fault on this complaint. The evidence shows there were attempts to reintegrate her back in the classroom, including using reduced timetables and transition plans.

Lack of alternative education

My findings

94. As noted above, I am satisfied steps were taken to provide alternative education.

Complaint process

95. Ms J is unhappy with the way the Council dealt with her formal complaint. In December 2020 she sent it a complaint about lack of provision and suitable education throughout that year. A few days later she received a response. This said it had escalated her concerns to a manager who will contact her. It asked her to send the same information to the school so it could investigate what it was responsible for. It also explained the annual review was set for early January which will review the EHC plan and further conversations with her about provision can take place.
96. In March 2021, she asked the complaint to go to stage 2. She added to her complaints in April and the Council said it would respond in May. In May, it sent its response.

My findings

97. I found fault in the Council’s handling of Ms J’s complaint. The complaint procedure states a stage 1 response is sent within 15 working days of receiving a complaint. Although she received an email quite promptly from the Council in response to her initial complaint, I am not satisfied the response she received clearly set out what the outcome of it was and whether she could go to stage 2 of its procedure. Indeed, she was told it was with a manager who would contact her about it. There is no evidence of the manager doing so.
98. I consider this caused her some injustice. It caused her distress as it caused some frustration and uncertainty.
99. Although she asked for it to go to stage 2 in March 2021, she added further complaints in April and the Council told her it could not reply until May, which it did. The Council’s complaints procedure says it will respond within 20 working days of its decision. I consider it explained why it could not meet the deadline and found no fault on this part of her complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

100. I considered our guidance on remedies.
101. The Council will take the following action within 4 weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Ms J a written apology for its failure to deal with her complaint properly under the first stage of its complaints procedure.
2. Review the identified failings with the first stage handling of her complaint and act to ensure they cannot be repeated on future complaints.
102. In response to my draft decision, the Council confirmed its complaints systems have been updated which will ensure the omission of the stage 2 information will now be included in all future stage 1 responses.

Back to top

Final decision

103. I found:

• No fault on complaints a) to c); and
• I found fault on complaint d). The agreed action remedies the injustice this caused.

Back to top

Parts of the complaint that I did not investigate

104. I have not investigated any complaint Ms J may have about the school’s actions or provision. This is because the law says the Ombudsman cannot investigate any complaint about what happened inside a school. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman