Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly advise her about the choices available for B’s education arrangements. She says the Council named Elective Home Education (EHE) on B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, even though she had not asked for this. Mrs X also complains the Council failed to secure special educational provision for B and failed to issue an amended Final EHC Plan. We have found the Council at fault for not addressing Mrs X’s concerns about EHE and for not securing B’s special educational provision in full. We have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to properly advise her about options available for her child B’s education arrangements. She says the Council named Elective Home Education on B’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in 2021, despite her not asking for or wanting this. Mrs X says the Council then failed to take action to address her concerns. Mrs X says this led to unnecessary frustration and distress, as she had to educate B at home without support.
2. Mrs X also complains the Council failed to send her a copy of B’s amended Final EHC Plan in 2022. She says she is unclear whether the Council accepted the comments she made during the annual review process. She is also unclear whether the Council fully secured the provision set out in B’s amended EHC Plan.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered information she provided.
6. I considered information the Council provided in response to my enquiries.
7. Both Mrs X and the Council were able to comment on a draft version of this decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

Relevant legislation, guidance and policy

Education, Health and Care Plans

8. 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.
9. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include:
• Section B: The child or young person’s special educational needs.
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person.
• Section I: The name and/or type of school.
10. We cannot direct changes to the sections about education, or name a different school. Only the tribunal can do this.
11. The Council is responsible for putting in place the arrangements specified in the EHC Plan. 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.
12. The special educational needs and disability code of practice (the Code) sets out the information that should be included in each section of an EHC Plan. The Code says the special educational provision required by the child should be set out in Section F of the EHC Plan and should be detailed and specified. The Code says Section F provision should normally be quantified, in terms of the type, hours, frequency of support and level of expertise, including where this support is secured through a personal budget.

Appeal rights

13. There is a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal against a decision not to assess, issue or amend an EHC plan or about the content of the final EHC plan. Parents must consider mediation before deciding to appeal. An appeal right is only engaged once a decision not to assess, issue or amend a plan has been made and sent to the parent or a final EHC plan has been issued.

Education otherwise than at school (EOTAS)

14. Education otherwise than at school (EOTAS) is a formal special education package made under an EHC Plan. A council has the power to arrange EOTAS if it is satisfied it would be inappropriate for provision to be made in a school. (Section 61 Children and Families Act 2014)

Elective Home Education (EHE)

15. Parents have a right to educate their children at home (Section 7, Education Act 1996). This can include the use of tutors or parental support groups. Elective home education is distinct from education provided by a council otherwise than at school, for example when a child is too ill to attend. In choosing to educate a child at home, the parents take on financial responsibility for any costs involved, including examination costs.
16. Councils have a power, but not a duty, to provide support - for example funding or therapy at home - for children with SEN who are EHE. The SEN Code of Practice states that councils should fund the SEN needs of home-educated children where it is appropriate to do so.
17. The government has published guidance on EHE for parents and local authorities. Section 8 of the guidance for local authorities addresses home-educated children with special educational needs.
18. Paragraph 8.5 of the EHE guidance for local authorities states:

“Where parents feel strongly that their child with SEN (with or without an EHC plan) should be educated at home but cannot undertake this themselves, and the local authority agrees that it would be inappropriate for the child to receive the necessary special educational provision in a school, post-16 institution, or state-funded early years setting, the authority has the power, under s.61 of the 2014 Act, to arrange for the special educational provision that the child requires to be made in the child’s home. If a local authority does this for a child with an EHC plan, the plan should clearly explain the arrangements, and the authority will have a duty under s.42(2) to ensure that the education specified in the plan is provided.”

19. It goes onto state:

“It is important to distinguish between a situation like this, in which a local authority itself arranges special educational provision in a child’s home because it considers education in a school or other institution inappropriate, and a situation in which a child’s parents arrange their own home education as described in the paragraph above. The former is not ‘elective home education’.”

20. The Council publishes its EHE policy on its website. Relative to this complaint, the Council’s website says:

“You can decide to stop home educating and opt to send your child to a school for their education at any time.”

Back to top

What I found

Background

21. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every interaction between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the analysis section of this decision statement.

The Council issues B’s first EHC Plan naming EHE

22. In early 2021, the Council carried out an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment (EHCNA) for Mrs X’s son, B. The Council documented that B had attended school with 1:1 support, but found the environment difficult and could not attend consistently. The Council’s records state B was awaiting assessment for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and other conditions.
23. During the assessment process, Mrs X met with an Educational Psychologist. Following this meeting, Mrs X wrote to the Council on the 26 January 2021. She set out the points of discussion and said:

“The final option is me home schooling B. It’s not ideal because he loves being around other children, which I can’t offer him at home… Last night we came across something called EOTAS which we most certainly need to explore further. That would enable us to keep him home but perhaps seek external support such as tutoring.”

24. In March 2021, the Council agreed to issue an EHC Plan to B. Mrs X, herself a teacher, told the Council she did not wish to remove B from the roll at his current school. She said she wanted him to receive education at home until a proper plan was in place. Mrs X said she would like to seek funding to support home learning. On the 19 March 2021, Mrs X wrote:

“We don’t know what to do for the best at this point, but we do feel confident that EOTAS/Supported Home Learning is the right move, at least until B has his formal diagnosis.”

25. On the 22 March 2021, the Council wrote to Mrs X and said:

“I expect that the EHCP will be finalised naming School X with an element of funding attached. Any flexibility between yourselves and the school will need to be agreed by the school. I am hopeful of an alternative provision becoming available at School Y as I know they are really flexible in their approach to education. In respect of the Personal Budget, please email with the list of things you want to include and how they will help meet the outcomes in Section E (of the EHC Plan).”

26. The Council issued a draft EHC Plan on 21 March 2021. The Council said Mrs X had 15 days to seek changes and tell the Council which school she felt should be named on the plan.
27. On the 7 April 2021, Mrs X wrote to the Council. She said the family was trying to work out what to ask for using the personal budget and asked when the Council needed this information. On the 8 April 2021, the Council issued B’s Final EHC Plan.
28. Under Section I of the plan, the Council named EHE. The Council documented that B’s needs could be met in a mainstream primary school setting, but B’s parents had chosen to educate B at home. Under Section J, the Council recorded that a personal budget was still under discussion. The cover letter provided Mrs X with a right of appeal against the content of the plan, but said any concerns should first be raised with the Council. The letter stated the Council would prefer to resolve any issues locally, rather than go to appeal.
29. Mrs X wrote back to the Council on the same day, unhappy with the setting named in B’s EHC Plan. Mrs X said B could not be educated in a mainstream setting, something B’s school had attested to. Mrs X said they had not chosen to educate B at home, but there was no choice but to do so. Mrs X wrote the family would like help from professionals.
30. The Council wrote to Mrs X, saying her concerns had been passed to a manager. The Council said it would contact Mrs X about the issue within a few days. The Council wrote:

“At this point we don’t feel we really need to take it to the Resolutions Team. They would be the people who would undertake mediation with you if the problems cannot be resolved so probably best to save that route should you need to follow the formal challenge procedure?”

31. Mrs X wrote to the Council at the end of April 2021, seeking an update on what was happening. The Council said the matter was with a senior manager and it should be able to update Mrs X within one week, at the beginning of May 2021.
32. Mrs X says the Council did not provide any updates after this. In August 2021, Mrs X asked the Council for an update on B’s EHC Plan, their request for a personal budget, and their dissatisfaction with what was recorded in Section I.
33. The Council responded, apologising for the lack of update. It said:
1. The Council had refused Mrs X’s request for a personal budget, because the Council considered Mrs X had elected to home educate B.
2. A manager should have updated Mrs X, but this had not happened.
3. The proper route to challenge the setting named in the EHC Plan would be via appeal to the SEND Tribunal, but said the time limit to lodge an appeal had now elapsed.
4. The SEND Tribunal may accept an out-of-time appeal, because Mrs X had been waiting for the Council to reply to her initial challenge and this had not happened.
5. Mrs X should contact the Council’s Resolution Team or a senior manager to try and address the situation.
34. In further correspondence, the Council said it was seeking advice on whether it could support a late appeal to the SEND Tribunal, given the delay was because of the Council. It also said it was exploring whether it would be better to hold an early review of the EHC Plan.
35. The Council later provided a further update to Mrs X on the 24 August 2021. In its email to Mrs X, the Council:
1. Said appealing to the SEND Tribunal would take a minimum of 20 weeks, with a hearing most likely to take place the following year.
2. Proposed waiting for confirmation of a diagnosis of autism for B instead, as this would be new evidence that would allow Mrs X to seek a review of B’s EHC Plan. It said this would allow Mrs X to ask for a different setting and request a personal budget. It anticipated this would take up to 10 weeks.
36. On the 30 August 2021, Mrs X wrote to the Council. She said she now understood that, where parents sought EHE, this meant the Council had no duty to provide a personal budget, or contribute towards the cost of a child’s education. Mrs X said she had always been clear she was asking for supported home learning or EOTAS to educate B outside of a mainstream school setting. She said she did not understand why there had been many conversations about applying for a personal budget if the Council intended to name EHE on B’s EHC Plan.
37. The Council said Mrs X could raise these points during the future review of B’s EHC Plan.

The Council issues an amended EHC Plan

38. The Council held an annual review of B’s EHC Plan in December 2021. The notes recorded for the meeting state Mr and Mrs X did not believe they had ever elected to educate B at home. Mrs X said B needed an EOTAS package so B could remain at home for the time being, but so Mrs X had support to meet his education, health and social needs.
39. On the 10 February 2022, the Council issued B’s amended Final EHC Plan. Section F of the EHC Plan specified a package of EOTAS provision for B. The Plan said B’s educational needs would be met by a package of tuition and therapy until he could access a school environment. The EHC Plan set out methods of teaching and interaction that would be helpful for B. It also said the Council would:
1. Commission a trained Speech and Language Therapist for B.
2. Commission a trained Occupational Therapist to undertake a sensory assessment for B. It said B’s identified sensory needs would then be included in his EHC Plan.

Mrs X’s complaint

40. In August 2022, Mrs X complained to the Council about how it had handled B’s educational arrangements. Mrs X’s complaint was extensive; broadly summarised, she complained:
1. The Council had assessed B’s needs poorly and named EHE on the EHC Plan, when this should have been EOTAS. Mrs X said the Council had misadvised her throughout.
2. The Council had not responded to Mrs X’s attempts to address concerns about the plan, leaving her unable to appeal. The case officer then discouraged Mrs X from seeking a late appeal by saying this would take a long time, recommending an early review of the EHC Plan instead.
3. The Council still had not issued a final EHC Plan, despite holding the annual review at the end of the previous year.
4. The Council had failed to secure the special educational provision specified in B’s EHC Plan.
5. The Council communicated poorly throughout. Mrs X’s case officer left the Council and Mrs X did not know. Correspondence about revisions to the EHC Plan went without reply.
6. Mrs X had paid for private assessments, when this may have been the Council’s responsibility.
41. In September 2022, the Council met with Mrs X to discuss the complaint. Following this meeting, the Council wrote to Mrs X to follow up on the discussion. It said:
1. During the meeting, Mrs X had told the Council she felt misled by her case officer over the choice of EOTAS and EHE, not understanding the difference in financial support. The Council said the case officer was no longer working for the authority, so it could not clarify this with them directly. It said it would provide training to all officers on the difference between EOTAS and EHE, and how to explain these differences to families.
2. Mrs X said that she felt errors from the Council’s SEN team meant that B had been unable to attend a suitable school setting that academic year. The Council said it had since consulted with School J, which had agreed to accommodate B if the Council would fund the additional placement. It said it was discussing this with School J.
42. Mrs X sought a review of her complaint, disputing the factual accuracy of the response. Mrs X said she had always wanted EOTAS/supported home learning for B and had never mentioned EHE, save for one occasion when she rejected this as a choice. Mrs X said there continued to be poor communication, with officers and mentors involved with B seemingly unaware of what others were doing. Mrs X said she and Mr X had driven much of the progress in resolving the issues with B’s EHC Plan, rather than the Council taking the lead.
43. In October 2022, the Council responded to Mrs X’s stage two complaint. It compiled a detailed report setting out its investigation and conclusions. In summary, it said:
1. There was no evidence to indicate the Council had misled Mrs X about her choices for educating B.
2. The decision to name EHE on B’s EHC Plan was informed by information the Council received during the EHCNA process, which suggested a mainstream school could meet his needs.
3. Its records from the time showed Mrs X researching specialist placements for the longer term and suggesting it would be best to educate B at home, with a personal budget. It said there had also been discussions about EOTAS provision and supported home learning.
4. Mrs X’s case officer had outlined an expectation the Council would name a school setting and there would be further discussion about a personal budget. It said Mrs X could have exercised her right of appeal if she disagreed with the content of B’s EHC Plan.
5. It had decided to meet with Mrs X to resolve her complaint at stage one, given the complexity of the complaint submission. Because of this, it did not intend to respond to every point at stage one, instead focusing on resolution of the key outstanding issues. It apologised if it had not made this clear in advance of the meeting.
6. It said it would be providing training for its officers.
44. In its accompanying covering letter, the Council said there had been miscommunication between Mrs X and the Council throughout the EHC Plan process. It said it was sorry if it had not always been clear about why the Council had made certain decisions. It apologised if B’s education had been negatively affected by delays arising from staffing challenges. It said it was seeking to remedy this by securing B a place at Mrs X’s preferred setting at School J.
45. B started at School J in late 2022. Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

First EHC Plan naming EHE

46. Parents and guardians can appeal the content of an EHC Plan, including the setting named, to the SEND Tribunal. When the Council issued B’s EHC Plan in April 2021, it explained Mrs X’s right of appeal. In its stage two complaint report, the Council said Mrs X could have challenged its decision to name EHE on B’s EHC Plan by exercising this right of appeal. The Ombudsman will not usually investigate a complaint about the setting named on an EHC Plan, because it would be reasonable for somebody to appeal this decision to the SEND Tribunal.
47. There are factors in this case that mean the Ombudsman should exercise discretion to investigate this aspect of Mrs X’s complaint. The first is the Council’s conduct when Mrs X raised her concern about B’s EHC Plan naming EHE. As directed in the letter accompanying B’s EHC Plan, Mrs X approached the Council with her concerns. The Council actively dissuaded Mrs X from approaching its Resolutions Team to engage in mediation, saying it would be better for a manager to consider the issue first. It then delayed in providing a response, to the point that Mrs X’s appeal right elapsed. It considered supporting Mrs X in making a late appeal to the SEND Tribunal, but then actively advised Mrs X against this, citing the prospect of delays. It instead encouraged an early review of B’s EHC Plan. Given these factors, I am not persuaded it would have been reasonable for Mrs X to have exercised her right of appeal in this case.
48. The second, and more pertinent, factor is that an appeal to the SEND Tribunal should not have been necessary. In its stage two complaint report, the Council said Mrs X could have appealed against its decision to name EHE on B’s EHC Plan. I therefore understand the Council’s position to be that Mrs X should have appealed to the SEND Tribunal to be allowed to stop providing EHE for B. This is incorrect: elective home education is a choice and parents have the right to stop at any time, by asking the local authority to secure education for their child. Any appeal would have therefore been superfluous in these circumstances.
49. I asked the Council whether it could show it made clear to Mrs X that she would be responsible for B’s educational provision and costs if she chose EHE. The Council said the correspondence showed it mentioned the cost of provision and discussed a personal budget. The Council said it could not show it had sufficiently explained to Mrs X it would not meet any costs associated with EHE. It said:

“The Council agrees that we could have informed and explained the implications of EHE to Mrs X more fully and ensured that all implications were fully understood. We also acknowledge that we must ensure that case officers in the SEND team appropriately and sufficiently understand and are able to explain this to parents/carers. A training session has since been devised and delivered to address this.”

50. I asked the Council how it satisfied itself Mrs X was making a properly informed decision for EHE to be named on B’s EHC Plan. The Council referred me to correspondence it exchanged with Mrs X around the time it issued B’s EHC Plan. It told me this provided evidence Mrs X was deciding to EHE, based on her view that B attending a school for education purposes was not suitable at the time.
51. The correspondence the Council referred to is set out in paragraph 23. Mrs X mentioned home educating B, but directly referred to EOTAS provision, not EHE. It is clear Mrs X believed the school environment would not be suitable for B, based in part on feedback from B’s school at the time. She said it may be best for B to receive education in the home setting and referred to him being “home educated”. In other correspondence I have seen, Mrs X mentioned supported home learning and financial support, in the form of a personal budget for B.
52. However, Mrs X did not state she was choosing EHE in any of the exchanges I have seen. What Mrs X was describing was, in substance, EOTAS. As set out in paragraph 19, there is a distinct difference in these arrangements, even if education is ultimately delivered in the home setting. I have seen no evidence the Council explored the differences between EHE and EOTAS with Mrs X. I have seen no evidence the Council explained to Mrs X it had no obligation to coordinate provision or provide financial support if she chose EHE, particularly when discussing personal budgets. I have seen no evidence that Mrs X made an informed choice to electively home educate B.
53. I therefore find the Council at fault for naming EHE on B’s EHC Plan, for misadvising Mrs X on the need for an appeal in this case, and for not addressing Mrs X’s concerns at the earliest possible opportunity.
54. These faults caused Mrs X an injustice. The Council held an early annual review in December 2021 and issued a final amended plan in early February 2022, specifying EOTAS provision. The Council could have taken this step when Mrs X first raised concerns in April 2021. Applying the same approximate timescale means that if the Council had responded promptly to Mrs X’s concerns, it could have issued an amended EHC Plan in around June 2021. This means Mrs X was left to electively home educate B, without support, for approximately seven months longer than she otherwise would have been.

Complaint the Council failed to issue an amended Final EHC Plan in 2022, affecting provision

55. The Council issued B’s amended Final EHC Plan in February 2022. The content of this plan was substantively the same as that issued in 2021, but referenced EOTAS provision not yet identified. It also said B should have Occupational Therapy (OT) and Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) assessments.
56. The content of Section F in B’s EHC Plan is mainly comprised of strategies and approaches that should be used to help B engage with learning. For example, the Plan says B should have:

“A high level of adult support from staff trained and experienced in working with children with social communication difficulties, ADHD and sensory processing difficulties.”

57. As another example, the Plan says:

“Use of visual resources to help B communicate his feelings and arousal level and raise his own awareness of his feelings. This will need to be individualised according to his preferences and understanding but could include pictures of faces, rating scales, or some other visual method.”

58. The provision detailed in the EHC Plan is not set out in such a way that it can be easily quantified, by type, hours, frequency of support and level of expertise. I believe the Council failed to take proper account of the requirements of the Code, set out in paragraph 12, when drafting the structure of B’s EHC Plan. I have found the Council at fault for this.
59. This fault caused B an injustice. The Council was responsible for securing any special education provision set out in B’s EHC Plan from the point of issue. However, the lack of clarity in the plan makes it difficult to monitor the provision secured for B. The way the plan is drafted means we cannot effectively investigate whether provision was made, as there is no clear benchmark against which to measure the Council’s actions. This causes uncertainty about how much provision B should have received.
60. Mrs X says B received no provision, other than virtual appointments with a wellbeing practitioner.
61. I asked the Council for evidence of how it had secured the special educational provision set out in the plan since February 2022. The Council said:
1. It had commissioned a SaLT package from April 2022 to December 2022;
2. Mrs X sourced an OT assessment, which the Council had paid for;
3. It had commissioned mentoring from August 2022 to December 2022; and
4. B had been placed at School J from September 2022.
62. I note the Council’s response in terms of the SaLT and OT assessments. The placement at School J was not specified on the EHC Plan. Equally, mentoring is not specified in B’s EHC Plan.
63. Taking account of the comments from Mrs X and the Council, I believe, on a balance of probability, that B did not receive the full special educational provision set out in his EHC Plan between February and July in the 2021/22 academic year. I have found the Council at fault for this.
64. This fault caused B and Mrs X an injustice. B likely did not receive the full provision to which he was entitled, which would have affected his educational attainment during this period. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty.
65. Mrs X told me that:
1. The Council issued an amended Final EHC Plan on the 8 February 2022, specifying a package of EOTAS provision in section F. Mrs X had not yet proposed any changes to the draft plan. Mrs X’s case officer said the Council had issued the plan so it would meet the statutory deadlines, but the package of EOTAS had not yet been finalised.
2. Mrs X then submitted some edits to the plan and the Council issued another amended Final EHC Plan on the 10 February 2022.
3. Mrs X then submitted additional information concerning B’s updated diagnosis in April, May and June 2022, but never received a response as to whether this could be reflected in B’s EHC Plan.
66. Mrs X told me she did not understand why she was able to make changes to the amended Final EHC Plan after it had been issued. She said she was unsure whether the plan she had received was the “final” plan because of this and questioned whether the provision specified in the plan met B’s needs.
67. The Council told me it issued B’s amended Final EHC Plan on 10 February 2022. I have not seen any other versions of B’s amended Final EHC Plan, apart from that issued on the 10 February 2022. I have not found the Council at fault for failing to issue an amended Final EHC Plan.
68. In its complaint responses, the Council has accepted faults in how it communicated with Mrs X. I agree with the Council’s finding of fault and consider its lack of communication caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty. Mrs X was left unsure whether the Council had considered her comments about the plan, and whether these comments would be considered in any provision set out for B.
69. The Ombudsman cannot decide whether the provision set out in the plan was suitable for B’s needs. When the Council issued the amended Final EHC Plan, it provided Mrs X with a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Mrs X could have appealed the content of the plan to the SEND Tribunal if she disagreed with the provision set out and I believe it would have been reasonable to do so.

Back to top

Agreed action

70. Within four weeks of the final decision being issued, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Mrs X for the faults and injustice identified in this statement. The Council should have regard to the Ombudsman’s guidance on “Making an effective apology", set out in our Guidance on Remedies document.
2. Provide training to relevant officers on the difference between elective home education and EOTAS, if it has not already done so. Officers should be aware of the distinction between these arrangements, as set out in the government’s elective home education guidance for local authorities. Officers should also be aware of the importance of ensuring that parents or guardians are making an informed choice to electively home educate and what their responsibilities are if they do. Finally, officers should be aware that parents or guardians can opt to stop elective home education at any time and ask the Council to secure education for their child.
3. Remind officers of what the Code says about the need to draft EHC Plans in such a way that special educational provision can be quantifiably measured.
4. Pay Mrs X £2200 in recognition of the avoidable distress and frustration experienced, as well as B’s lost special educational provision. This is calculated as follows:
1. £450 in recognition of the avoidable distress and frustration Mrs X experienced as a result of the Council’s poor communication and when electively home educating B without support. When making this recommendation, I have considered the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies, which suggests payments of up to £500 to recognise avoidable distress.
2. £700 in recognition of B’s lost special education provision, for the period covering February to March 2022, a partial school term. The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies recommends a figure of between £900 and £2400 for a full term. I have considered on balance that B did not receive the full special educational provision to which he was entitled, but there is ambiguity about this because of the EHC Plan not being drafted in such a way as to be able to quantify provision.
3. £1050 in recognition of B’s lost special educational provision for the period covering May to July 2022, a full term. I have applied the same rationale as above in considering this figure. Mrs X may wish to use this financial remedy for B’s educational benefit.
71. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

72. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault by the Council. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman