Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to secure a school place or suitable alternative education for a child with an Education, Health and Care plan. There was also a failure to consider providing social care support and a failure to take into account duties under the Equality Act. The Council will apologise, make a financial payment and implement service improvements. The complaint is upheld.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on her own behalf and on behalf of her son, whom I shall refer to as Y. Y has special educational needs (SEN).
2. Ms X complains the Council:
• Failed to provide suitable alternative education when Y could not attend school.
• Delay in finalising an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan and identifying a school. Ms X considers the Council could have looked at a wider range of schools earlier.
• Discriminated against Y by not providing suitable education.
3. Ms X says because of the alleged fault:
• Her child received two hours education per week, despite fifteen hours being promised.
• Her partner was unable to work due to Y having no school place.
• The family incurred additional costs to provide Y with educational experiences.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. We 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)
7. 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)
8. 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.
9. 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

10. I have considered information provided by Ms X and the Council including:
• Complaint documents
• Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan documents
• Consultations with schools
• Alternative provision documents
• Elective home education records
• Admissions records.
11. I have considered relevant law and statutory guidance including:
• The Children Act 1989
• The Education Act 1996
• The Children and Families Act 2014
• The Special Education and Disability Regulations 2014 (‘The SEND Regulations’)
• The Special Education (Personal Budget) Regulations 2014
• The Special Educational Needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years (‘The Code’)
• Department for Education SEND Guide for social care professionals
• Government Guidance:
1. Alternative Provision;
2. Education for children with health needs who cannot attend school;
3. Children Missing from Education;
4. Elective Home Education;
5. Fair Access Protocols;
6. Short breaks: safeguarding the welfare of disabled children
7. Unregistered independent schools and out of school settings.
12. I have considered guidance issued by the Ombudsman including our Focus Reports and Guidance on Remedies.
13. I have also spoken to Ms X by telephone.
14. 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.
15. Ms 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

Sufficient education

16. Section 15ZA Education Act 1996 (as amended) requires councils to ensure that enough suitable education is provided in their area to meet the needs of persons over compulsory school age.

Alternative provision

17. 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. (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision.
18. While ‘full-time’ is not defined in law, pupils in alternative provision should receive the same amount of education as they would in a maintained school. Provision can be in one setting or more. The specific personal, social and academic needs of pupils should be identified and met to overcome any barriers to attainment. A personalised plan for intervention should be prepared by the commissioner setting clear objectives for improvement and attainment, linked to EHC plans if relevant. (Statutory Guidance ‘Alternative Provision’)
19. The law and statutory guidance says alternative provision should be in place within six days of an exclusion or fifteen days of absence due to health needs. The law does not specify when provision should be in place for a child without a school place, but the expectation is that councils should seek to arrange provision without delay.
20. Alternative education providers must be registered with OFSTED if they meet the criteria for an independent school. Settings will meet these criteria where they are providing fulltime education for five or more pupils, or one child with an EHC plan. There is no legal definition of ‘fulltime’ education, but Government guidance considers an institution to be providing fulltime education if it is intended to provide, or does provide, all or substantially all of a child’s education. Where an institution operates during the day, for more than eighteen hours per week, it is considered to be providing fulltime education as the education takes up the substantial part of a child’s week and precludes the possibility fulltime education could be provided elsewhere.
21. We have 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 sight? published July 2022. Councils should consider the individual circumstances of each case and put the chosen action into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.

EHC assessments and plans

22. A child with special educational needs may have an 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 or a council can do this.
23. The Council is responsible for making sure that arrangements specified in the EHC plan are put in place. We can look at complaints about this, such as where support set out in the EHC plan has not been provided, or where there have been delays in the process.
24. 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.
25. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs and disability Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’) sets out the process for carrying out EHC assessments and producing EHC plans. The guidance is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014. It says:
• where a council receives a request for an EHC needs assessment it must give its decision within six weeks whether to agree to the assessment;
• the process of assessing needs and developing EHC plans “must be carried out in a timely manner”; steps must be completed as soon as practicable;
• the whole process from the point when an assessment is requested until the final EHC plan is issued must take no more than 20 weeks (unless certain specific circumstances apply); and
• councils must give the child’s parent or the young person 15 days to comment on a draft EHC plan.
26. Section 36(20) of the Children and Families Act 2014 defines an EHC assessment as including an assessment of the child/young person’s social care needs. Where a child/young person is not previously known to social care this will require a new assessment to identify if there are social care needs which need to be included in the EHC plan. SEND Regulation 6(1) says Councils must seek social care advice and information.

Personal budgets

27. Families can request a personal budget or direct payments to secure provision in an EHC plan when a draft plan is being prepared or a plan is reviewed. (SEN (Personal Budget) Regulations 2014)

Children in need

28. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need. All disabled children are automatically considered ‘children in need’ for the purposes of s.17.
29. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. Where children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) 

Admissions

30. A parent can apply for a school place at any time. When applications are made outside the normal admissions round they are considered ‘in-year applications’. Where it can be demonstrated that reasonable measures have been taken to secure a school place through the usual in-year admissions process and this has not been successful, a child may be eligible for the Fair Access Protocol (FAP). The purpose of the FAP is to ensure that vulnerable children and those who are having difficulty in securing a school place in-year are allocated a school place as quickly as possible. (Non-Statutory Guidance Fair Access Protocols, 2021)
31. Children eligible for FAP include children in alternative provision who need to be reintegrated into mainstream school and children with special educational needs or a disability (with or without an EHC plan).
32. Where a child has an EHC plan school admission is via the naming of a setting on the Plan rather than via the in-year admissions process. At draft plan stage parents and young people have the right to express a preference for a school and where this is a maintained school there are limited reasons when a Council can refuse the request.

Equality Act / Public Section Equality Duty

33. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection, in employment, education, the provision of goods and services, housing, transport and the carrying out of public functions.
34. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty.
35. The 'protected characteristics' referred to in the Act are:
• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• marriage and civil partnership;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex; and
• sexual orientation.
36. We cannot find that an organisation has breached the Equality Act. However, we can find an organisation at fault for failing to take account of its duties under the Equality Act.
37. The Public Sector Equality Duty requires all local authorities (and bodies acting on their behalf) to have due regard to the need to:
• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Equality Act 2010;
• advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.
38. The broad purpose of the Public Sector Equality Duty is to consider equality and good relations into the day-to-day business and decision making of public authorities. It requires equality considerations to be reflected into the design of policies and the delivery of services, including internal policies, and for these issues to be kept under review.

Human Rights Act

39. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. The Act sets out human rights in a series of ‘Articles’. Article 2 of the First Protocol states no person shall be denied a right to an education. The right to education is not an absolute right, the Government may take into account the needs and resources of the community. Public authorities must where possible try to ensure policies and decisions do not interfere with the right to education.

Key events

40. Y was attending a mainstream primary school until September 2021 when the Council says Ms X decided to electively home educate (EHE).
41. Ms X says she removed Y from school as she was dissatisfied with the provision and put him on the waiting list for another school the same week, but no other school place was found. Ms X considers were it not for Y’s disability he would have been found a school and he is being treated unfairly because of his disability.
42. Documents provided by the Council confirm Y was registered as EHE and the EHE officer visited the home. There is no record of Ms X being unhappy electively home educating while waiting for a place at her preferred schools.
43. Ms X applied for a statutory assessment for an EHC plan in September 2021, but the Council refused this on the basis Y’s needs could be met within the resources of a mainstream school. Ms X did not appeal this decision, although she believed Y would be better placed at a school with a SEN specialism.
44. In July 2022 the Council says Ms X informed it she no longer wanted to EHE. The Council then considered Y a Child Missing from Education (CME).
45. Ms X says she contacted School Admissions in April 2022 to try and get Y back into school and therefore the Council knew she no longer wanted to EHE in April. Ms X said Y had been on waiting lists for two other primary schools since she removed him from school in 2021. When the schools declined a place due to Y’s needs being too high, Ms X re-started the process to get an EHC plan.
46. Internal Council emails show an officer did check where Y was on the waiting list of schools in February 2022; however, there is no record of Ms X wishing to stop EHE at that point. An EHE officer visited to carry out a review in April, and again there is no reference to Ms X being unhappy EHE.
47. The Council received Ms X’s request for statutory assessment for an EHC plan in late May 2022. It initially refused the application, but later, after speaking to Ms X, it returned the case to panel and agreed to assess.
48. Ms X’s application for statutory assessment in 2022 refers to Y being home schooled but struggling with home education and that an officer had advised her to re-apply for an EHC needs assessment ‘in order to gain… access to a school that is suitable to support [Y’s] needs’. In the All About Me form supporting the application Ms X stated Y was currently home schooled but awaiting a school place at two primary schools that had SEN provision.
49. In June these schools refused a place because of the level of support Y would require, which could not be provided without an EHC plan. The Council’s Admissions officer spoke to Ms X in mid-june and Ms X emailed this officer setting out the reasons why a school had refused a place.
50. In late June Ms X emailed the SEN officer stating ‘we are desperate to get Y back in education’ and explained without an EHC plan it was difficult to find a school that would accept Y.
51. In early July the Council declined to carry out an EHC needs assessment. A week later the Council reversed this decision and agreed to assess. It appears this was because of Ms X’s evidence that schools would not admit Y without an EHC plan.
52. The Council issued draft plans in August and September, and a final EHC plan in October 2022. While Ms X has indicated in a meeting with the Council in September 2022 she intended to appeal to the SEND Tribunal, Ms X did not issue an appeal. Ms X told me this is because she agrees with the type of placement the Council has named in the EHC plan (a maintained special school).
53. The EHC plan states Y will receive 25 hours 1:1 support per week in mainstream school and that there will be a transition into mainstream school, but then names a maintained special school as the type of placement in Section I.
54. The Council says there was no delay in carrying out the EHC needs assessment. The legal timescale is twenty weeks from the date of the request. It met this. Ms X says twenty weeks is the maximum and given Y had no school place the process should have been completed sooner.
55. The Council says it agreed to provide home tuition requested by Ms X from early September 2022 and to look for a specialist school placement. The Council says it approved fifteen hours of one-to-one alternative education tuition per week until a school place was found.
56. Ms X says this timescale is inaccurate. She started to request support from April 2022 but was told no support would be offered until there was a draft EHC plan. Ms X says later the Council told her support would only be offered once the final plan was in place. I have seen no evidence to support this account, although Ms X was clearly seeking an EHC plan to access schooling from May 2022.
57. There is also a discrepancy between Ms X and the Council’s accounts of when she expressed her dissatisfaction with EHE. The Council says this was early July, but Ms X says it was in April. The Council says it is not unusual for parents to EHE while they wait for a place at a preferred school and the fact Ms X was making admission applications would not necessarily have alerted it that she was not happy EHE.
58. The Council has acknowledged there was a delay in finding a tutor after September 2022. It says this was because Ms X requested the tutor have direct training and specialism in children with autism and a pathological demand avoidance (PDA) profile. Ms X says the EHC plan required the tutor to have this expertise. The EHC plan wording supports this is the case. The Council told me as there was a shortage of tutors with this expertise and it needed to find a venue, there was a delay before tuition started in February 2023.
59. Ms X told me that although fifteen hours was approved, this was not provided. Ms X says a tutoring agency was identified in September, but it declined to work with Y saying it would not work and be too difficult. Ms X says if Y did not have a disability, then a tutor would have been found and this is discrimination.
60. When I spoke to Ms X in March 2023, she told me Y was receiving only two hours tuition per week. When I spoke to Ms X in May 2023, she told me tuition had been increased to four hours, but only when she requested this. Ms X says the Council did not wish to pay for a venue but wanted the tutor to use a public library. Ms X says both she and the tutor considered this unsuitable.
61. Ms X says she funded provision costing £575 to occupy Y as follows:
• Educational visits - £200
• Stationery and equipment - £150
• Forest school - £75
• Cricket - £90
• Books - £60.
62. Ms X says due to Y being without a school place and requiring care, her partner has been unable to work.
63. Ms X says she asked the Council for support for life skills, to use its befriending service, and sensory sessions at a centre listed on the Council’s local offer website. Ms X also asked for a social care assessment but told me this was refused.
64. Ms X considered Y should have fulltime education and not be limited to fifteen hours per week. Ms X wants Y to have thirty hours including forest school, sport, life skills, sensory sessions and befriending service.
65. Council says its policy is to endeavour to provide fifteen hours per week alternative education, but as this is provided via 1:1 tuition, fifteen hours is very intense.
66. Council records show it consulted schools between September 2022 and November 2022 without success. The SEN team met Ms X twice in Winter 2022 to consider further options.
67. The Council told me it consulted with at least seventeen schools including mainstream, specialist and independent schools but no place was found.
68. In January 2023 the Council’s SEND Priority Placement Panel considered Y’s case, including Ms X’s request for sport and other services, which it treated as a request for a personal budget delivered via direct payments. It agreed a sports budget for one term and referral to the sensory centre. Forest school was not approved as the Council decided it needed more investigation, because it was not an approved provider, and they needed to consider what constituted an illegal school.
69. Ms X says in addition to the financial stress on the family, the situation has impacted her studies and she failed two years of university. It has impacted her physical and mental health as she has a pre-existing condition that is affected by stress.
70. Council records show it requested social care advice for the EHC plan in June 2022, but social care replied Y was not known to the service. In January 2023 records suggest Y was referred to a short break service. Ms X says the referral did happen, but the short break service said it never received it. Ms X has contact with the short break service via her other child.
71. Ms X told me Y had never had a social care assessment and she and her partner had not been offered a parent carer needs assessment. Ms X had requested support, but social care had told her they did not meet the threshold.
72. In March 2023 a school place became available, and Ms X told me Y started there in early May.

Analysis

Scope of investigation

73. I have not considered matters which Ms X could have appealed to the SEND Tribunal, including the refusal of the EHC needs assessment in 2021 and the contents of the final EHC plan. It is reasonable to expect Ms X to have used any rights of appeal.
74. I have not considered the period from September 2021 when Ms X told the Council she wished to EHE, until April 2022, when both parties agree Ms X was EHE.

Fault

75. There is a discrepancy between Ms X and the Council’s evidence about when Ms X notified her intention to stop EHE, at which point the Council would have needed to consider providing education in a school or otherwise.
76. In April 2022, the EHE officer met Ms X and no concerns are recorded. It is of course possible Ms X did express concerns and the officer did not record them. However, in the absence of evidence, this is one person’s word against another, and it is not possible for me to make a finding of fault by the Council.
77. In late May 2022 Ms X applied for an EHC needs assessment and her request does include information which indicates Y is not engaging in home education and that her preference is to get him into a school. In late June Ms X describes being desperate to get Y into a school, which would require an EHC plan.
78. I am satisfied there was enough information available in May and June for the Council to have been alert to the possibility Ms X may require assistance in finding a school, for example via FAP. It should have discussed the options with her, including whether she was content to keep EHE, particularly when the EHC needs assessment was refused. Again, Ms X is clear there was a conversation with an officer where she expressed that she didn’t want to EHE but wanted a suitable school place. However, again there is nothing recorded which would enable me to make a finding Ms X notified the Council she wanted to cease EHE.
79. I find the Council was aware no later than late June of Ms X’s wishes when she stated she was desperate to get her child back into education. I would have expected to see recorded in the file that someone had discussed the options with Ms X. Instead, the EHC needs assessment was refused, and it was only when Ms X herself formally notified the Council she wished to cease EHE that alternative provision was considered.
80. We expect councils to be proactive in providing information to families and not rely on parents having knowledge of legal procedures or what formal notifications they need to make to get suitable provision.
81. I find the Council knew no later than late June that Ms X was not EHE voluntarily and wanted the Council to secure education in a school or otherwise.
82. The Council’s duties under equality and human rights legislation were engaged. Ms X was finding it difficult to secure a school place because of the level of need. The Council should have sought to ensure Y was able to access the same educational opportunities as non-disabled children.
83. When the Council did agree to put tuition in place, this was not until September, and it failed to secure this. This was fault. Ms X’s child has received very little formal education since September 2022. Tuition provided was for two, and then four, hours per week. This is not equivalent to full-time or on par with what would be received in a school.
84. Government guidance does say that face to face one to one academic tuition is intense and can be equivalent to more hours of group learning, however Ms X did not want full-time academic tuition, she wanted sensory support, sport and forest school to supplement the tuition and make it up to a full-time package. Councils cannot have blanket policies about how much education they will provide. They should consider each case on its individual merits. Here, the child was only out of school because the Council could not secure a school place. The parents both wanted to work, not be at home providing supervision. The Council should have considered providing a fulltime package given the family’s individual circumstances. This could have included support from across education and social care.
85. The EHC plan stated that Ms X’s child should receive 25 hours of one to one adult support per week. Ms X’s child remained entitled to the provision in their EHC plan while the Council was looking for a school place and the Council had a duty to secure this provision. (s.42 Children and Families Act 2014) Y did not receive 25 hours per week, only two to four hours. This was fault.
86. Councils do have to be careful about the use of unregistered provision, but on the evidence I have seen, Ms X was not suggesting forest school would provide substantially all of her child’s education (over 18 hours per week). Ms X was anticipating forest school, sensory sessions and sport would supplement the main education of fifteen hours home tuition. Ms X was also asking to commission forest school herself via direct payments. I can see no reason why Ms X’s requests for direct payments could not have gone to the Council’s panel much earlier. I would also have expected the Council to have already known about the rules for ‘illegal schools’ and to have a policy about when parents can themselves commission providers who are not on the Council’s approved list. Even if the Council was not willing to agree use of this provider, it could have considered similar provision that was on its approved list.
87. The Council failed to obtain advice from social care about Ms X’s child as part of the EHC needs assessment. This was fault. A response a child is not known to the service is not sufficient, Councils must obtain enough information to be able to take a view whether there are unmet social care needs.
88. Under the Children and Families Act, Councils should offer Parent Carer Need Assessments on the appearance of need or when one is requested. The purpose of a parent carer assessment is to help sustain the caring role and to support parent carers to work or to access education, training or leisure facilities. The Council failed to assess Ms X or her partner’s needs or appreciate the impact its service failure had on the parents’ ability to work and study. This was fault.
89. While I acknowledge the Council did consult a range of schools from Autumn 2022, this process should have started earlier given Ms X had stopped EHE by July. Councils have a legal duty to secure sufficient education in their local area. The inability to secure a school place or suitable alternative education for Ms X’s child over the course of the whole school year 2022/23 raises questions as to whether the Council is meeting its sufficiency duty.

Injustice

90. Where someone has suffered injustice we try to put them back in the position they would have been in had the fault not occurred. Our focus is on restoring services that have been denied and taking practical steps to put things right. Where this isn’t possible, we will consider symbolic financial payments to acknowledge distress or other non-quantifiable loss. It is not our role to assess economic losses or award ‘compensation’, this is the role of the courts.
91. We do not normally recommend remedies that reimburse loss of earnings. This is because we cannot usually, on balance, establish a clear and causal link between the fault and the claimed injustice of lost earnings or accurately assess loss given a family may receive benefits which offset lost earnings.
92. Where a child has missed out on education, we will usually recommend a payment of between £900 and £2400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. We will take into account the child’s special educational needs, what level of support was in place and whether ‘catch-up’ provision can remedy some or all of the loss.
93. Ms X says her partner had to stop work because Y was out of school. While Ms X had provided evidence of a work contract in 2018, I have not seen evidence that specifically links the loss of work to these events. I do acknowledge that family members will have had to provide additional care and support to Y while he was unexpectedly at home and this was an injustice.
94. I find that Ms X has incurred expenses to provide Y with educational opportunities due to him being out of school, and that these should be reimbursed.
95. I find that Y received no education until a tutor was found in February 2023 and then only two to four hours was provided.
96. I find that Y was likely to have been isolated from his peers and additional strain placed on the family due to his absence from school over a year.
97. There is uncertainty whether, had a social care assessment or parent carer needs assessment been carried out, the family would have been eligible for services such as short breaks. This uncertainty is itself an injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

98. To remedy the injustice to the family within one month of my final decision:
• The Council will apologise to Ms X and her family.
• The Council will offer Ms X a child in need and parent carer needs assessment.
• The Council will pay Ms X £500 for her distress because of the fault and her time and trouble bringing the complaint.
• The Council will reimburse Ms X £575 for her out of pocket expenses.
• The Council will pay Ms X’s partner £1000 for the inconvenience and distress caused by having to provide unforeseen care to Y while he was out of school.
• The Council will pay Ms X, on behalf of Y, £6000 for the loss of education and distress caused to him calculated as follows:
1. £800 for July 2022 when no education was provided;
2. £2400 for the period September to December 2022 when no education was provided;
3. £2000 for the Spring term of 2023 when minimal education was provided;
4. £800 for the period from Easter 2023 until a school place was provided.

Ms X may use the funds as she sees fit for Y’s educational or social benefit.

99. To remedy the injustice to the family within three months of my final decision:
• The Council will provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the actions it is taking to ensure sufficient specialist school places.
• The Council will provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the actions it is taking to ensure sufficiency of alternative education within the area including home tuition.
• The Council will ensure officers have clear guidance about the use of unregistered provision.
• The Council will issue written reminders to officers of the Council’s equality duties and how these may arise in cases of children with SEN and EHC plans and what they should consider both when developing policies and when considering individual cases or requests for reasonable adjustments.
100. The Council will will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

101. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council in failing to secure a school place or suitable alternative education for a child with an Education, Health and Care plan. There was also a failure to consider providing social care support and a failure to take into account duties under the Equality Act. This caused loss of education and distress. The complaint is upheld.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman