Summary: Ms C complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s (X) Education, Health, and Care needs assessment and the provision she received when she was unable to attend her school placement. The Council apologised to Ms C for its failure to provide X with alternative provision for a five-month period and made payment to remedy the injustice it caused. We found the Council’s remedy was appropriate, and there was either no fault on other matters complained about, or we could not consider these as Ms C exercised her appeal rights to a tribunal about the same or linked matters.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms C, complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter's (X) education between early 2021 and July 2022. She said it failed to:
• follow statutory processes to properly assess X’s needs for an Education, Health, and Care Plan and collaborate with Ms C;
• consult parental preference schools before it finalised X’s EHC plan and listed an unsuitable school;
• provide provision set out in X’s EHC plan in Spring 2022 which meant she was unable to attend her school placement, and refused to conduct an emergency annual review when she requested it; and
• provide alternative provision when X was unable to attend her school placement, and wrongly involved an Education Welfare Officer in 2022.
2. Ms C said, as a result, X experienced a loss of education. Ms C also said she experienced uncertainty, distress and had time and trouble to get the Council to address her concerns.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review 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 use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
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. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
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. As part of my investigation, I have:
• considered Ms C’s complaint and the Council’s response;
• discussed the complaint with Ms C and considered the information she provided;
• considered the information the Council provided in response to my enquiries; and
• had regard to the relevant law, guidance, and policy to the complaint.
11. Ms C and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
12. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Education, Health, and Care Plans

13. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document 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 their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the tribunal or the council can do this.
14. 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 the following:
• Where the council receives a request for an EHC needs assessment it must decide whether to agree to the assessment and send its decision to the parent of the child or the young person within six weeks.
• If the council decides not to conduct an EHC needs assessment it must give the child’s parent or young person information about their right to appeal to the tribunal.
• 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.
• If the council goes on to carry out an assessment, it must decide whether to issue an EHC Plan or refuse to issue a Plan within 16 weeks.
• If the council goes on to issue an EHC Plan, 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);
• Councils must give the child’s parent or the young person 15 days to comment on a draft EHC Plan and express a preference for an educational placement.
• The council must consult with the parent or young person’s preferred educational placement who must respond within 15 calendar days.

Appeal rights

15. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against:
• a decision not to carry out an EHC needs assessment or reassessment;
• a decision that it is not necessary to issue a EHC Plan following an assessment;
• the description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified;
• an amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan; and
• a decision not to amend an EHC Plan following a review or reassessment.
16. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
17. This means that if a child or young person is not attending school, and we decide the reason for non-attendance is linked to, or is a consequence of, a parent or young person’s disagreement about the special educational provision or the educational placement in the EHC Plan, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision.
18. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents or young person. If the parent or young person goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded. We would not usually look at the period while any changes to the EHC Plan are finalised, so long as the council follows the statutory timescales to make those amendments.
19. We can look at matters that do not have a right of appeal, are not connected to an appeal, or are not a consequence of an appeal. For example:
• delays in the process before an appeal right started;
• where there is support in an EHC Plan that is not being delivered to the child or young person and we decide the cause is not connected to the appeal; and
• alternative education when the reason the child or young person is not attending education is, in our view, not connected to or is not a consequence of a matter that was, or could have been, part of an appeal to the tribunal.

Alternative provision

20. Under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 councils have a duty to make arrangements for the provision of suitable education, at school or otherwise, for children who, because of illness or other reasons, may not receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.
21. Councils must “make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.” (Education Act 1996, section 19(1))
22. Statutory guidance, ‘Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs’ says that if specific medical evidence, such as that provided by a medical consultant, is not quickly available, councils should “consider liaising with other medical professionals, such as the child’s GP, and consider looking at other evidence to ensure minimal delay in arranging appropriate provision for the child”.
23. The statutory guidance says the duty to provide a suitable education applies “to all children of compulsory school age resident in the council area, whether or not they are on the roll of a school, and whatever type of school they attend”.
24. The education provided by the council must be full-time unless the council determines that full-time education would not be in the child’s best interests for reasons of the child’s physical or mental health. (Education Act 1996, section 3A and 3AA)
25. The Courts have found that it is a judgement for the council to decide whether a child’s health needs prevent them from attending school and to decide what weight to give medical evidence. (R (on the application of D (by his mother and litigation friend)) v A local authority [2020])
26. 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
27. We made six recommendations. Councils should:
• consider the individual circumstances of each case and be aware that a council may need to act whatever the reason for absence (except for minor issues that schools deal with on a day-to-day basis) – even when a child is on a school roll;
• consult all the professionals involved in a child's education and welfare, taking account of the evidence when making decisions;
• choose (based on all the evidence) whether to require attendance at school or provide the child with suitable alternative provision:
• keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing it if a child’s capacity to learn increases:
• work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to mainstream education as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary; and
• put the chosen action into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.
28. Where councils arrange for schools or other bodies to carry out their functions on their behalf, the council remains responsible. Therefore councils should retain oversight and control to ensure their duties are properly fulfilled.

Attendance

29. Where a child’s attendance at school drops below a certain level, it is likely a council’s Education Welfare Officer (EWO) will become involved after a referral from the school. EWOs have various responsibilities. These are typically a mix of providing advice and support to schools, parents and children, while also leading a council’s investigation and enforcement of the law around school attendance.

What happened

30. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Ms C’s EHC needs assessment request

31. In December 2020 Ms C’s daughter (X) was enrolled with a school. She did not attend school full time which Ms C said was due to her health conditions. Ms C shared a private report by a mental health nurse with X’s school, which shared information about her difficulties.
32. In January 2021 Ms C asked the Council to complete a EHC needs assessment for her daughter (X). She said this was because X had health issues and needs to enable her to attend her allocated school and access her education. COVID-19 restrictions were in place at the time and X’s attendance was limited.
33. In March 2021 the COVID-19 restrictions were lifted, and the school told Ms C X had to attend full time. However, her subsequent attendance was limited and the school marked her absence as unauthorised. At the same time, the Council informed Ms C it would not complete an EHC needs assessment for X.
34. In April 2021 Ms C complained to the school X was not receiving a full-time education due to her deteriorating mental health and her absence should be authorised. She told the Council the school was failing to meet X’s needs and to provide alternative provision for her. Ms C told the Council X had now been absent for more than 15 cumulative days and it should provide her alternative provision.
35. Following mediation with the Council, Ms C appealed the Council’s refusal to complete a EHC needs assessment for X to the SEND Tribunal in July 2021.
36. Ms C also brought a disability discrimination claim to a Tribunal against the school. This included her claim it had failed to make reasonable adjustments to permit X to attend part time. Ms C explained to the Tribunal that she wanted the judge to find X could only attend school part-time so that the Council would be under a duty to provide her with alternative provision under s19. In December 2021 the Tribunal found the school had not discriminated X. It also considered the Council’s duties under section 19 of the Education Act 1996, and found there was not enough medical advice or professional opinion for it to agree X could not attend full time and would therefore be entitled to alternative provision. It noted an educational psychologist had observed X in school, as had other professionals, and none had said X attending school full-time would disadvantage her. Ms C told the Tribunal she wanted the Council to agree, or to be ordered, to complete an EHC needs assessment. She felt once X had an EHC Plan, X would no longer need to attend school part-time. Ms C asked to appeal the disability discrimination Tribunal’s decision to the Upper Tier Tribunal, but this was refused in April 2022. Although this was a Tribunal against the school, it is relevant to the evidence available for Council's deliberations on whether it had a duty to provide education to X under s19.

EHC needs assessment

37. In November 2021 the SEND Tribunal ordered the Council to complete X’s EHC needs assessment. The Council started the process shortly after and told Ms C it would use the information she had shared with the Tribunal and seek information from professionals.
38. Ms C did not agree with the Council’s approach to contact organisations and professionals about X. She wanted to know who the Council intended to ask for information, their qualifications, training and experience. She also wanted all the correspondence between the Council and professionals and asked for X to be assessed by a physiotherapist and another professional.
39. The Council informed Ms C it had no evidence physiotherapy advice was necessary. However, it would refer X to the NHS Children and Young People’s Integrated Therapies (CYPIT) for this to be triaged, and to give advice on speech and language therapy (SLT) and occupational therapy (OT). It said the NHS would be happy to inform her about their qualifications as part of the assessment process, and asked Ms C to confirm her agreement so it could progress the EHC needs assessment. It also explained her GP referral regarding some of her concerns had been declined by Paediatrics.
40. Ms C shared a private mental health nurse report with the Council. This showed X was struggling with school, had anxiety and further assessments for other conditions were needed.
41. In February 2022 the Council issued its draft EHC Plan for X. Ms C provided her comments, which included her request for the Council to consult two other schools.

The EHC Plan

42. In March 2022 the Council issued X’s final EHC Plan which set out the special educational needs provision she should receive and listed her existing school as the educational provider. It explained it would seek a provider for the SLT and OT through its normal commissioning process, but Ms C could share information about any professionals she would prefer. It also said it would consult with her preferred schools.
43. Ms C questioned why X’s EHC Plan had been finalised a week early and before the Council had consulted with her preferred schools. She disagreed X’s existing school could meet her needs. She also raised concerns about the Council’s SLT and OT providers and said she wanted to be involved in the process.
44. Three weeks later the Council told Ms C it had arranged for the NHS CYPIT to provide SLT and OT for X as set out in her EHC plan, and it would inform the school for this to be arranged. However, it had not made a physiotherapy referral as Ms C had not consented to this, it said she could now self-refer. It explained it was waiting for her preferred schools to respond to its consultation and had chased this.
45. Ms C disagreed with the Council. She said:
• She had consented for X to be referred for assessment by some professionals including the physiotherapy. However, this was for specific information, and she wanted each body to allocate a relevant professional who could contact her directly for explicit consent. She said she had no contact from the NHS CYPIT therapies and did not accept she must now self-refer for physiotherapy;
• She believed the Council had breached the SEND Regulations in the EHC needs assessment process including in how it had worked with her, sought information from professionals, named the school and set out provision in X’s EHC Plan; and
• She had not consented to the Council consulting schools. She wanted only to consent if she was copied in on all correspondence.
46. In May 2022 a meeting was held between the school, Ms C and the Council. Ms C said the meeting showed the school could not meet her needs and provision in X’s EHC Plan was not in place.
47. Ms C asked the Council for an early annual review of X’s EHC Plan as the SLT and OT provision was not in place, and because she did not believe X’s school could meet her needs.
48. The Council offered Ms C a further meeting in June 2022, which she declined. The Council subsequently sent Ms C a letter refusing her early annual review request. It said this was because the EHC Plan had only been in place three months and no further professional advice was available. Ms C could appeal her disagreements about the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal, and the school had informed the Council it could continue to meet X’s needs. It therefore expected X to return to school.
49. X’s school asked the Council for an Education Welfare Officer to be involved to mediate a reintegration plan for X to encourage her back into school. It told the Council the steps it had taken to engage with X to offer a phased return but was aware Ms C had appealed the school placement. The Council said it spoke with Ms C but did not action the referral as she refused to engage.
50. In June 2022 Ms C appealed X’s EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal. During the appeal process the Council and Ms C discussed her concerns. They agreed two amendments to the EHC Plan which was to name a different school for X to attend and inserting details about the education environment needed. An agreed independent school was subsequently listed which X is enrolled with.
51. Ms C said, although she still disagreed with some of the provision in X’s EHC Plan, she agreed to end the appeal to prioritise X starting school again and as she could not continue to fund the online provision she had put in place for X until the appeal could be heard.
52. An amended Final EHC Plan was issued for X in August 2022 naming X’s current school in section I.

Ms C’s complaint

53. In June 2023, a year later, Ms C complained to the Council. She explained why she had taken long to complain which included her personal issues and several other appeals and complaints she was dealing with.
54. The key points of Ms C’s complaint and the Council’s response were:
• Alternative provision – the Council had failed to provide educational provision for X when she was unable to attend her school from March 2021 to July 2022. The Council found the school had offered alternative provision for X when she was unable to attend, but Ms C had refused this. Ms C appealed sections B, F and I of the March 2022 EHC Plan. In July 2022 the Council asked the Tribunal to issue a consent order as the Council and Ms C had come to an agreement that X would now attend an independent mainstream school. The Council agreed it should have provided alternative provision for X from March 2022 to July 2022 and offered £1,500 to acknowledge the loss of education she experienced. Ms C accepted the Council’s offer;
• The EHC needs assessment process – Ms C said the Council had breached SEND Regulations in how it sought medical advice. This included its process for consent to obtain information, seeking advice from professionals Ms C wanted it to, and seeking unnecessary advice from professionals in areas it already had advice. The Council told Ms C this part of her complaint was late. It explained it could not make referrals for some medical advice including physiotherapy without her consent or which should be through X’s GP, but it would be happy to consider the outcome of any reports Ms C provides;
• The EHC Plan – Ms C said the Council had failed to follow the SEND Code of Guidance as it should carry out the process in a timely manner and work collaboratively with her. However, it should not put her under pressure to agree things more quickly than she was comfortable with. This included it had finalised X’s EHC Plan a week before the statutory deadline, it was not open around her request for information, and its educational psychologist had reduced provision after a panel had agreed the EHC Plan could be issued. The Council told Ms C this part of her complaint was late, and had been considered in the SEND Tribunal process. It would therefore not address this in its complaints process;
• The listing of the school in X’s EHC Plan – Ms C said the Council was wrong to have listed the school in X’s EHC Plan. This was because it had not consulted with parental preferences at the time, the school could not meet X’s needs and some professionals agreed the school was unsuitable. The Council told Ms C this part of her complaint was late, and it had been considered in the SEND Tribunal process. It would therefore not address this in its complaints process;
• Information sharing – Ms C said the Council had breached the general data protection regulation (GDPR). She said it had a blanket process for consent and had shared information it should not have. This Council told Ms C this part of her complaint was late, but it provided comments on why it did not agree it had breached the GDPR. It had since shared the information Ms C had requested following her data requests;
• Other procedural issues – Ms C said the Council had wrongly shared X’s draft EHC Plan with her school which was before she had made her comments. She believed this could be seen as an attempt for the school to suggest modifications to the draft plan to enable it to meet the needs of X. The Council told Ms C this part of her complaint was late, but explained it had acted within the legal framework of consulting with the current school with X’s draft EHC Plan at the time.
• Funding for X’s EHC Plan – Ms C said the Council first allocated funding after X’s Final EHC Plan was issued. The funding was allocated three days later. The Council confirmed funding should be allocated when the EHC Plan is, or should have been, finalised;
• Inaccurate data in X’s EHC Plan – Ms C said X’s Final EHC Plan had some inaccurate and incomplete data as a professional’s report had not been listed and another report had not been removed. The Council found this matter to be late, however, it told Ms C it would amend the data in the current ongoing review;
• Refusal of early annual review – Ms C said she asked the Council to complete an early annual review in Spring 2022 when X’s EHC Plan had been finalised, but X was not receiving provision set out in her Plan. The Council met with Ms C and considered her request. It refused her request and explained the EHC Plan had only been in place three months and Ms C had appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal;
• Involvement of Education Welfare – Ms C was unhappy about the school’s decision to refer X to the Council’s Education Welfare Officer in Spring 2022. The Council said the school did so as it had tried to take reasonable steps to encourage X to attend school, but it was aware Ms C disagreed with the school placement. It therefore wanted to mediate around reintegration. However, the referral was not progressed further by the Council as Ms C refused to engage.
55. In September 2023 Ms D asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. She also said she had received the Council’s remedy offer which she had agreed to. However, she had since reconsidered and felt this only covered some of the provision X should have received at the time.

Analysis and findings

56. Ms C’s complaint relates to the Council’s handling of X’s education and the EHC needs assessment process between January 2021 to July 2022. Her complaint is therefore late. This is because she did not complain to the Council until June 2023 and bring her complaint to the Ombudsman’s attention until September 2023.
57. I have considered Ms C’s reasons for the delay in progressing her complaint about the Council’s actions. I am satisfied her personal health and issues, along with her several ongoing concerns on similar matters, meant she could not deal with the concerns as soon as she would have liked. I will therefore exercise my discretion to consider her concerns from January 2021.

Ms C’s 2021 EHC needs assessment request and alternative provision

58. Ms C correctly used her right of appeal against the Council’s decision not to complete a EHC needs assessment for X in early 2021. The SEND Tribunal considered Ms C’s appeal in November 2021. I cannot therefore consider any matter relating to the appeal or prior to the appeal as there is no evidence the Council delayed the process.
59. X did not have an EHC plan in 2021, the Council did therefore not have a duty to provide any special educational needs provision at the time.
60. However, Ms C informed the Council X was unable to attend the full-time education available to her at her allocated school. The Council had a duty to consider whether to provide X with any alternative provision between April 2021 to November 2021 when the SEND Tribunal ordered the EHC needs assessment.
61. The evidence presented to the disability discrimination Tribunal, and its findings that there was insufficient professional evidence that X could not attend school full-time, are relevant to this complaint investigation.
62. For the period April 2021 to March 2022 when Ms C wanted X to receive alternative education, there was no fault because the evidence shows:

.

• the Council considered Ms C’s request for X to receive alternative provision as her attendance at her allocated school was limited. This was around the same time Ms C applied for, and was initially refused, an EHC needs assessment;
• it discussed Ms C’s concerns with the school and considered the limited information available to it at the time from professionals. This included what steps and support the school had put in place to enable X to attend her education. It found the school had taken reasonable steps to support X to attend and offer provision it believed she could access; and
• it was for the Council to decide, once it had considered the relevant available information, whether to provide X with an alternative provision, allow her to attend part-time, or to take action against Ms C for X’s lack of school attendance.
• the Council’s conclusions were in line with what the disability discrimination Tribunal also found in December 2021, X could attend school full-time, and Ms C’s appeal against this Tribunal was refused in March 2022. Ms C has not provided us with any evidence that she gave to the Council in that period that was not already considered by that Tribunal.

The EHC needs assessment and EHC Plan process

63. In November 2021 the SEND Tribunal ordered the Council to complete X’s EHC needs assessment. The evidence shows the Council started the process shortly after and informed Ms C it intended to seek advice from various professionals including the school, an educational psychologist, an SLT, and services which had worked with X.
64. It finalised its EHC Plan for X in March 2022 which was within the statutory timescales.
65. I understand Ms C disagrees with the Council’s handling of the EHC needs assessment process as she feels it operated a blanket policy for consent to discuss X’s case with other professionals, sought advice it should not have, and did not seek advice from a physiotherapist and another professional she wanted it to. She also said it was wrong to issue the final EHC Plan before it had the consultation responses from her preferred schools.
66. However, I found I cannot consider these parts of Ms C’s complaint. This is because I cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, an appeal to a tribunal. This means I cannot consider:
• concerns about the advice the Council sought, or did not seek, and its decision to share X’s draft EHC Plan with her school for comments, as this relates to her disagreement about provision and needs for X as set out in the March 2022 EHC Plan. Such matters carry appeal rights and Ms C exercised her right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal in July 2022; and
• concerns about the listing of X’s school in the EHC Plan as these carries appeal rights and this was part of Ms C’s appeal to the SEND Tribunal in July 2022. The fact Ms C and the Council agreed to amend the final EHC Plan as part of the Tribunal process and end the appeal does not mean I can investigate her concerns; Nand
• concerns about the Council’s blanket policy for consent to contact professionals or other bodies, and how it shared information with her or other bodies relates to the Council’s handling of data. The Information Commissioner (ICO) is best placed to consider such concerns.

Failure to provide provision in X’s EHC Plan

67. In March 2022 the Council issued X’s final EHC Plan. It subsequently had a duty to secure the provision set out in the Plan. Ms C said the Council failed to secure some of the provision in X’s EHC Plan and allocated the school’s funding band three days after it had issued the Plan.
68. The Council said X’s school was available to her, but it accepted it had failed to provide alternative provision for X from March 2022 to July 2022 when she was unable to attend the school listed in her EHC Plan. Ms C subsequently told the Ombudsman she was not happy with the Council’s offer she had accepted.
69. I found Ms C’s complaint about X loss of educational provision between March 2022 to July 2022 is likely to be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because Ms C disputed the school placement saying it could not meet X’s needs, and some provision in her appeal to the SEND Tribunal, which is closely linked to X’s reasons for not being able to attend her school. Also, based on the evidence available, I cannot say whether X would have attended her school placement had all the special educational provision in her EHC Plan, including OT and SALT, been available to her at the time.
70. However, the Council accepted it failed to provide X with alternative provision when she was unable to attend her school placement. This was therefore fault. The Council paid Ms C £1,500 for the five-month period where such provision should have been available to X. While I am not bound by Ms C’s acceptance of the Council’s offer, I found this to be appropriate in the circumstances and in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. I am therefore satisfied the Council’s apology and payment remedied the injustice X experienced.
71. Ms C also said the Council should have completed an early annual review when she requested this, and X was unable to attend her education. The Council considered her request but refused to conduct a review as no further medical evidence or information from professionals were available and Ms C had appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal.
72. I have found no fault in the Council’s decision to refuse an early annual review. This is because the appropriate way for Ms C to have her concerns considered was either in her meetings with the Council, through her appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal, or through the Council’s complaints process for failure to provide X with alternative provision.

Education Welfare involvement

73. Ms C was unhappy X’s school referred its concerns about her attendance to the Council’s Education Welfare officer in early 2022. The evidence shows the Council considered the referral and brought the school’s concerns to Ms C’s attention. It aimed to work with Ms C and the School to reintegrate X into her allocated school placement. However, when Ms C declined to engage, it closed the Education Welfare officer’s involvement.
74. I have not found fault in the Council’s handling of the school’s referral. It was entitled to consider the referral and decide what action was appropriate in the circumstances, which in this case was no further action. The frustration Ms C experienced was therefore not due to fault by the Council.

Back to top

Final decision

75. I have completed my investigation with a finding of some fault by the Council, which it has already remedied. However, several parts of Ms C’s complaint could not be considered as these related to matters for which she exercised her appeal rights.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman