Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure the provision set out in her son, Y’s Education, Health and Care plan was delivered and failed to adequately support his transition to post 16 education. The Council was at fault for failings in the annual review process in December 2021, not issuing a final amended plan for Y by 31 March 2021, missed provision in 2021-22, for delays in transition planning and support, poor communication and poor complaints handling. The Council should apologise and make payments to reflect the injustice caused to Y by the missed provision, the uncertainty and frustration caused to Mrs X, and the avoidable time and trouble she was put to pursuing the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council:
1. delayed issuing a final amended EHC plan in readiness for post-16 education;
2. failed to ensure the provision in her son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan was delivered between September 2021 and July 2022;
3. was responsible for failings in Y’s annual review, which was arranged by Y’s school, in December 2021;
4. did not adequately support his transition to post-16 education;
5. generally failed to respond to communications in a timely manner; and
6. did not respond appropriately to her complaint.
2. Mrs X said these failings meant Y did not get the support he needed in year 11 and was not ready to transition to college, which meant he had to defer by an academic year. She said the delays and lack of responses caused frustration for her and meant she was put to additional time and trouble pursuing the Council.

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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
7. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
8. In addition to the issues set out in paragraph 1, Mrs X also complained about delays in the mediation process after she lodged an appeal to the SEND Tribunal in relation to the content of Y’s EHC plan. She said these delays meant a subsequent delay in arranging appropriate support for Y.
9. Mediation is part of the appeal process. We cannot consider complaints where someone has appealed, nor can we consider issues that are closely connected to an appeal. Therefore, I have not investigated the complaint about the Council’s handling of the mediation process.
10. When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
11. If we are satisfied with 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered:
• the information Mrs X provided and discussed the complaint with her;
• the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, available on our website.
13. Mrs X 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

Relevant law and guidance

Special educational needs (SEN)

14. A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about education or name a different school. Only the tribunal can do this.

Securing provision

15. The council has a duty to secure the specified special educational provision in an EHC plan for the child or young person (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said this duty to arrange provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if a council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains responsible. (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)
16. 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 that 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.

Annual reviews

17. Councils should review EHC plans at least annually. It may delegate responsibility for arranging the review meeting to the child or young person’s school.
18. Within four weeks of the review meeting, a council must notify the child’s parent of its decision to either maintain the plan as it is, amend it or discontinue it. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176)

Key transfers

19. An EHC plan must be reviewed and amended in sufficient time prior to a child or young person moving between key phases of education, to allow for planning for and, where necessary, commissioning of support and provision at the new institution. For young people moving from secondary school to a post-16 institution or apprenticeship, the review and any amendments to the EHC plan – including specifying the post-16 provision and naming the institution – must be completed by the 31 March in the calendar year of the transfer. 

Transition planning

20. For young people with an EHC plan, preparation for transition to adulthood must begin from year 9 (age 13 to 14). Transition planning must consider the young person’s needs as they move towards adulthood. It should plan to support their choices for further education, employment, career planning, financial support, accommodation, and personal budgets where appropriate. 

This Council's corporate complaints procedure

21. The Council operates a two stage corporate complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within a further 25 working days. Its policy says it may take up to 65 working days in particularly complex cases.

What happened

22. Y had an EHC plan and attended a special school. This complaint relates to the academic year from September 2021 to July 2022, which was Y’s last year at school before moving to post-16 education. The decision statement sets out the key facts and does not attempt to cover everything that happened in this period, nor does it refer to all documents considered.

Delays in issuing EHC plans

23. Since Y was due to move to post 16 education in September 2022, the Council should have issued a final amended EHC plan by 31 March 2022. To achieve this, it is usually necessary to hold an annual review in the autumn term to allow time for amendments identified at the review meeting to be included in a final amended EHC plan in readiness for the new educational setting.
24. The Council had issued a final amended EHC plan for Y on 13 August 2021, which Mrs X appealed. She said this was because the Council had failed to make changes it had previously agreed to make. During mediation, on 8 October, the Council agreed to make changes Mrs X wanted, and it issued a final amended EHC plan on 1 December 2021. The school postponed the annual review meeting from 30 November to 16 December 2021 to allow it time to consider the new plan. This contributed to a delay in completing the annual review paperwork.
25. Following the annual review, the Council issued a final amended EHC plan on 25 April 2022. Mrs X appealed again. The Council agreed to make further changes in mediation and a further final amended EHC plan was issued on 22 June 2022.

Findings

26. The Council should have issued a final amended EHC plan by 31 March 2022. It did not do so until 24 April 2022, which was fault. However, the delay was partly due to factors that were outside the Council’s control, including the need to consider Mrs X’s appeal in relation to the August 2021 EHC plan, and the delay in the school completing the annual review paperwork, which partly resulted from that. The fault caused a short delay in Mrs X getting further appeal rights. She lodged a further appeal and, following mediation, the Council issued a further final amended EHC plan on 22 June 2022, which was before the end of the academic year. In the circumstances, an apology is a sufficient remedy for the delayed appeal rights.

Lack of provision

27. The Council issued a final amended EHC plan for Y in August 2021. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it was not able to confirm when the new EHC plan was sent to the school, but the school did not receive it until November 2021. This meant the school continued to work to the previous plan, issued in October 2020. The provision in both plans was similar, with the main changes relating to the description of Y’s needs.
28. As mentioned, a further final amended EHC plan was issued on 1 December 2021. This was sent to the school two days later. The school said it needed time to consider the new plan, which meant the annual review, initially arranged for 30 November, was postponed until 16 December 2021.
29. At the annual review Mrs X raised concerns about whether Y was receiving all the support in his EHC plan. The record stated:
• Y did not want some of the support as it made him stand out from his peers;
• the school could not deliver the touch-typing sessions and could not provide some of the support in the way it was set out in Y’s EHC plan. Mrs X asked to school to clarify the support it could, and could not, provide; and
• Y did not have all the ICT equipment set out in his EHC plan.
30. The annual review record also shows the school considered Y was making good progress towards all the outcomes in his EHC plan, but Mrs X disagreed with some of its comments. For example, she did not agree Y was confident about asking for help, nor that his speech was clear “at all times”. However, she agreed Y had made good progress in his current class.
31. In early January 2022, the school sent Mrs X a copy of the EHC plan, highlighted with the support it could not provide in the way set out in the plan. Mrs X said some of the support highlighted had been in Y’s EHC plan since year 7. The subsequent correspondence between Mrs X and the school shows that some of the issues related to the way the plan was written, and that the school wished to amend the wording, which Mrs X disagreed with. For example:
• the plan said Y required a quiet classroom “at all times” but the school said this was not practical for some lessons, such as in some practical subjects, so it wanted to amend the wording to say “in most” lessons or “except in practical subjects”; and
• the plan said Y required “small classes or teaching groups up to 10” and that this was needed “at all times” but the school had admitted an additional pupil to the class, making the total 11 for some lessons. Mrs X objected, particularly as the additional pupil had a staff member supporting them, which meant two additional “bodies in the room”.
32. The school accepted Y did not have a dyslexia pen, which was included in the December 2021 EHC plan and agreed to order that in early January 2022. The school confirmed it had received this on 11 March 2022.
33. Mrs X raised concerns with the Council on 7 January 2022. The Council said it would meet with the school to discuss the provision. Mrs X asked for an update on 13 January and made a formal complaint the next day as she had not had a response. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it was not able to provide any record to show it followed this up with the school.
34. In further communications with Mrs X later in January 2022, the school said it was trying to streamline what was a very detailed and occasionally repetitive EHC plan. Mrs X said she had battled for years to get Y the support he needed, and she wanted to ensure he now received the support as set out in his plan. She asked for a provision map to show the support the school was providing and set out the support she believed he was missing, based on the highlighted EHCP. This included:
• occupational health (OT) fine motor skills sessions;
• daily hand strengthening exercises;
• touch typing intervention;
• reading intervention, including access to e-books and support to choose them;
• a named key worker; and
• mentoring.

She also said he did not have the ICT equipment in his plan, nor a Dyslexia reading pen.

35. Mrs X raised further concerns about the missed provision with the school and the Council in February. She said Y had not had the fine motor skills group since September 2021 and was not getting daily fine motor skills support that term. Also in February, the Council responded to her complaint. It said it appreciated Mrs X was distressed to receive the EHCP from the school showing the provision not in place, and was sorry for the distress caused to her and to Y. It said the school had now arranged for a different member of staff to coordinate Y’s support.
36. Mrs X was unhappy with the response. She said Y should have all the provision in his EHC plan and the Council should have acted sooner to ensure it was in place. The Council confirmed it would consider the complaints at stage 2 on 1 March 2022.
37. When Mrs X complained to us in May 2022, having not received a stage 2 response, she also mentioned Y had not had the exam arrangements set out in his EHC plan for the first two GCSE exams. She purchased as much of the ICT equipment as she could in early June and the Council later reimbursed her.
38. In its stage 2 complaint response in July 2022, the Council upheld her complaint that Y had not received all the support in his EHC plan. The complaint response did not set out what support it accepted was not provided. In response to my enquiries, it said it attempted to clarify this by asking for the school to provide a provision map. The school did not provide a provision map until the end of the academic year, and this did not clarify the situation.
39. In response to my enquiries, the Council said additional training was being delivered to staff and it was trialling a new system whereby it would contact educational settings and families around one month after issuing a final or final amended EHC plan to check whether all the provision was in place. Where appropriate it will arrange meetings with parents of children who have multiple professionals involved so that all issues can be discussed in one meeting and actions agreed and documented. It has been meeting regularly with Mrs X since mid June 2022 to address her ongoing concerns.

Findings

40. The Council has accepted it failed to promptly send Y’s final amended EHC plan issued in August 2021 to his school. This was fault. This meant the school was continuing to work to the previous plan, issued in October 2020. However, this did not cause a significant injustice as the support set out in the two plans was quite similar.
41. As explained in paragraph 16 above, we expect councils to have systems in place to check the support in a child’s EHC plan is in place and to investigate complaints about this. In this case, Mrs X raised concerns in early January 2022. The Council has not been able to evidence it followed this up with the school at that time, which was fault.
42. The Council accepts that not all the support was in place; this was fault. It has been difficult to establish what support was and was not being provided, as the records show a dispute between Mrs X and the school about this, and due to the lack of action by the Council there is no independent evidence to clarify this.
43. On balance, I find the following support and/or equipment was not provided in the academic year 2021-2022:
• touch typing sessions;
• ICT equipment;
• dyslexia pen (from 1 December 2021 until 11 March 2022);
• fine motor skills support;
• daily hand strengthening exercises;
• an appropriate reading intervention; and
• mentoring.
44. Mrs X has providence evidence to show exam arrangements were not provided for Y’s first GCSE exam by the school. This was rectified for later exams. The school contacted the exam board asking for special consideration for that exam, which addresses the injustice caused. Although it has led to a delay in Y getting his final results, I cannot conclude this was due to fault by the Council.

Annual review

45. Y’s annual review was postponed from 30 November to 16 December 2021 to allow the school time to consider the further amended EHC plan issued on 1 December 2021. Mrs X said that despite having extra time to prepare for the review, the school failed to share all relevant paperwork two weeks before the meeting.
46. Mrs X said that as Y was in year 11, a moving into adulthood plan (the plan) should have been completed and discussed at the annual review meeting. She sent me a copy of the plan shared at the time, which shows key sections, such as education and training post 16, were not completed. Mrs X says the plan was not discussed at the review meeting. She also said the meeting was rushed and not all aspects were discussed that should have been. This meant a further meeting had to be held in January 2022.
47. Mrs X also complained she had had to complete much of the annual review paperwork herself, in particular around transition planning. Looking at the records provided, it is clear Mrs X did not agree with some of the school’s comments and wanted it to make changes. She also asked it to include further detailed information, not all of which the school agreed with.
48. In its stage 2 response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council accepted that although it had delegated the arranging of the annual review to the school, it remained responsible for any faults in the process. It said, on balance, it upheld the complaint.
49. In its response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it had reviewed the annual review process and was working with this school to provide direct support in relation to the annual review process.

Findings

50. The Council accepted there were failings in the annual review process for which it was responsible but did not confirm what those failings were. On balance, I find the school did not prepare all the relevant paperwork and share this with those invited to the annual review meeting two weeks in advance of the meeting in line with the Code.
51. It was not fault for the school to arrange a second meeting if that was needed to discuss all relevant issues. Mrs X considered the annual review paperwork prepared by the school was not sufficiently comprehensive, but this appears to have been partly due to differences of views between Mrs X and the school.
52. The Council has already apologised, and I consider that an apology is sufficient to remedy the frustration caused by the failings I have identified.

Support for Y’s transition to post-16 education

53. In October 2021, an educational psychologist (EP) suggested to the Council that Y might benefit from a Purpose, Approach, Thinking and Habits intervention (PATH). Mrs X asked the Council’s Inclusion Facilitator to make the referral in December 2021 and the referral was made in early January 2022. In early February the Council asked if Y could do an online PATH, which could be delivered more quickly. Mrs X said Y would need in-person sessions. These sessions were delivered in April 2022. The Council said the delay was due to COVID-19 restrictions that prevented delivery of in-person sessions at times in 2020 and 2021, which led to a backlog.
54. Also in October 2021, Mrs X told the Council the college courses Y was considering would only be for three days each week and she asked for support in arranging provision for the other two days. After Mrs X sent two chaser emails, the Council responded in December 2021 to suggest Mrs X asked the short breaks service for assistance. Working with the short breaks service, Mrs X identified appropriate provision for Y with provider A in April 2022 and a visit was arranged. Also, in April 2022 Mrs X sent the Council a quote and asked it to agree to fund this. Provision with provider A was confirmed in June 2022.
55. In November 2021 a Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) carried out a school visit, following which she prepared a report setting out her views on the support Y needed in the classroom and the support he would need for a successful transition to post-16 education. This included visits to potential colleges both by Y and, separately, by Mrs X. The Council agreed to support Mrs X with the visits if school staff were not able to do so.
56. In early March 2022, Mrs X asked the Council about occupational therapy (OT), which she said would not be provided unless Y chose a specialist college. She provided a quote from a specialist OT provider, provider B. She confirmed the two colleges Y was considering could provide the speech and language support in Y’s plan. Mrs X contacted the Council on 5 and 29 April and again on 6 May to ask it to confirm it had agreed the OT support from provider B. The Council confirmed this provision when it issued a final amended EHC plan for Y in June 2022. In its response to my enquiries, it confirmed it had agreed to pay provider B directly for Y’s support. Mrs X, in her comments on my draft decision, said the Council had not contacted provider B until late August by which time it was fully booked. This meant Y did not have this provision at the start of his placement in September 2022.
57. In May 2022 Y attended a transition day at his preferred college but did not like the course. The college suggested alternative courses, but Y did not wish to pursue these. Mrs X reported this to the Council and expressed her concern Y might not have a placement for September 2022. A few days later, in late May, Mrs X said Y should be educated otherwise than at school or college (EOTAS) and proposed the following:
• 2 days per week with provider A;
• 0.5 days per week sensory needs support with provider B; and
• 2.5 days per week with provider C to focus on maths and English.
58. The Council issued a final amended EHC plan for Y on 22 June 2022. This named the special school he was attending and stated he was due to transfer to a post 16 setting in September 2022 but did not specify a setting or type of setting. It set out transition support including taster visits, a tour of the new setting, introductions to course staff and liaison between settings. These actions were due to happen in September 2022. The plan also set out some specific actions to support his transition to the new setting. This included an OT review of the classroom environment to assess where Y should sit, which should happen before Y started his course. The plan also stated that an OT should carry out a reassessment at the end of the 2021-22 academic year to provide further recommendations.
59. In response to my enquiries in August 2022, the Council said in relation to this case:
• it had worked with Mrs X to agree amendments to Y’s EHC plan and was unable to consult with post-16 providers until his needs and provision were fully documented;
• it had agreed an EOTAS package would be the most suitable for Y and confirmed this in a final amended EHC plan; and
• it could not confirm Y needed provision five days per week and this was reflected in his plan.
60. I have not seen a final amended EHC plan that confirms the EOTAS package. I understand the Council planned to issue this in September 2022, but this did not happen because the new placement broke down. The plan dated 22 June 2022 was used to consult with provider C. Provider C confirmed the specific sessions it could offer in early July, following which actions needing to support Y’s transition were agreed in a meeting with Mrs X in mid July, although Mrs X has since said they were not all delivered, which contributed to the new placement breaking down.

Findings

61. The failure to issue a final amended EHC plan for Y by 31 March 2022 and the subsequent appeal of the plan issued in April, caused a delay in the transition planning for Y because the Council was not able to consult fully with post-16 providers until Y’s needs and provision had been agreed. Mrs X says the delay was largely due to the Council not implementing changes it had previously agreed in mediation, and although issues connected to the appeal process are out of our scope, the Council has accepted there were delays in mediation (in relation to the August 2021 plan), for which it has apologised.
62. There was also a delay in completing the PATH, which was due in part to delays caused by COVID-19 and was also partly because Y was not able to complete the work online.
63. There were also delays in responding to Mrs X’s enquiries about the sensory OT provision, and provision for the two days Y was not at college. The Council confirmed funding for these in June 2022, which was in advance of Y moving to post-16 education in September. In comments on the draft decision Mrs X said the Council’s delay meant that provider B could not deliver the support. Any injustice caused by that will need to be considered by a further complaint looking at events from September 2022 onwards.
64. Taken together, the above delays amount to fault. The delay caused Mrs X uncertainty and frustration.
65. That said, Y changed his mind about attending the course identified at the preferred college in May 2022, which led to a different plan having to be devised late in the academic year. This further delay to the provision of transition support was outside the Council’s control. Since issuing the draft decision, I have seen evidence to show the OT assessment, which was due to be carried out before the end of term in July 2022, was not carried out. The other actions to support Y’s transition set out in the plan were due to be completed in September 2022 and were therefore outside the period of this investigation, which ends in July 2022. Mrs X is entitled to make a further complaint about events from August 2022 onwards, and any injustice caused by the failure to carry out the OT assessment in July 2021 can be considered as part of the new complaint.

Communication and complaints handling

66. On 14 January 2022 Mrs X complained about the failure to provide all the support in Y’s EHC plan. On 23 January she made a further complaint about the school’s handling of the annual review. The Council’s response on 21 February 2022 referred to both complaints but did not address all the issues raised. Mrs X asked the Council to consider the complaint further at stage 2 and the Council confirmed it would do so on 1 March 2022.
67. As she had not received a response, Mrs X complained to us in May 2022. She said the support for Y was still not in place and that the Council’s communication had not improved following earlier complaints.
68. In its stage 2 response in July 2022, the Council:
• upheld the complaint about poor communication. It accepted it had not met its published timescales for responding to emails. It said its SEND team was experiencing high volumes of work, was trying to balance conflicting priorities, and was working hard to respond to everyone. It would endeavour to ensure response times were improved;
• upheld the complaint that Y’s EHC plan dated 12 August 2021 was not sent to his school, which meant the school was still working to the previous plan;
• upheld the complaint about delays in the mediation process, which Mrs X said resulted in further delays in putting support for Y in place;
• upheld, on balance, the complaint about the annual review. It said it delegated responsibility for arranging the annual review to the school but accepted it remained responsible for faults in the process; and
• apologised for the failings and offered to pay Mrs X £400 for failings in the annual review process, delays with mediation and poor communication. It offered a further £100 to remedy the additional time and trouble caused.
69. In a separate stage 2 response, also in July 2022, the Council:
• upheld the complaint about not securing all the support in Y’s plan. It said that despite its checks, not all the support “as outlined in the plan” was provided; and
• it apologised for this failing and offered Mrs X a payment of £400 for the missed support and a further £100 for her time and trouble.
70. Mrs X remained unhappy because she said the Council had still not addressed and remedied all the issues complained about. She accepted the £400 payment set out in paragraph 68 on the basis that we would continue to investigate and would award further payments if appropriate. Mrs X refused the other payment offers.

Findings

71. The Council’s stage 1 response in February 2022 referred to two complaint references but did not address all the issues raised in both complaints. This was fault.
72. There was a significant delay in responding at stage 2 – the complaints responses were not issued until July 2022. This was further fault.
73. The stage 2 responses were not detailed. For example, the Council upheld, on balance, the complaint about failings in the annual review but did not set out which failings it accepted. It also upheld the complaint about not securing all the support in Y’s EHC plan but did not provide any detail about the support it accepted was missed. In both cases, it offered payments of £400 for the upheld complaints but did not provide any explanation about how it arrived at those figures. This lack of detail amounts to fault.
74. The faults in complaints handling caused frustration to Mrs X.
75. The Council upheld the complaint about poor communication for which it apologised. It accepted our recommendation in another case to take action to improve communication, so I do not need to recommend further action here.
76. In each of the stage 2 responses it offered Mrs X £100 for her avoidable time and trouble pursuing it due to the failings identified. Although Mrs X did not accept these payments, I consider this was an appropriate remedy.
77. Mrs X accepted the offer of £400 for failings in the annual review in December 2021, delays in mediation and poor communication, and I am satisfied that remedy was appropriate.
78. Mrs X did not accept the further £400 offered to remedy the missed provision for Y. I am not satisfied that offer was a sufficient remedy and will make a recommendation about this below.

Back to top

Agreed action

79. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise for its failure to issue Y’s EHC plan by 31 March 2021, for delays in providing support for Y’s transition to post-16 education, and for the failings in its complaints handling. (It has already apologised for the other failings identified).
• Pay Mrs X £1,350 for the benefit of Y to remedy the missed support in the academic year 2021-22. This is based on £150 per month for nine months and reflects that most of the provision was in place during that period.
• Pay Mrs X the £200 it offered to remedy the avoidable time and trouble she was put to pursuing the Council during this period, and a further £100 for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays relating to transition planning and support and the failings in complaints handling. (This makes a total payment of £300 to Mrs X personally).
80. Within one month, the Council will remind relevant staff about the need to respond to all parts of complaints with sufficient detail to ensure it is clear what has been upheld or not upheld, and the reasons for the conclusion reached, and to explain the basis of any payments offered if appropriate.
81. The Council is already taking action to improve the annual review process, ensure it checks whether support is in place after issuing an amended EHC plan, and improve its communications and complaint response timings so I have not made further recommendations on those points.

Back to top

Final decision

82. I have completed my investigation. I found fault leading to personal injustice. I have recommended action to remedy that injustice and, where appropriate, to prevent recurrence of the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman