Summary: The Council was not at fault for deciding it could not properly conduct an educational review meeting for Miss B’s son without her attendance. It was also not at fault for making a referral to its children’s social work team which reflected its concerns about C’s education. Both these decisions were supported by law and guidance and were not obviously unreasonable.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I refer to as Miss B, complains that:
• The Council tried to insist that she attend an educational review meeting for her son (whom she educates at home). She says there is no legal requirement for her to attend a meeting.
• The Council also sent her several different emails about the meeting from several different people, which was excessive.
• Because she did not want to attend the meeting, the Council made an unwarranted referral to its children’s social work team.
2. Miss B says these matters caused her distress and delayed her son’s review.
3. I refer to Miss B’s son as C.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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

5. I considered:
• Information from Miss B and the Council.
• The Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Regulations 2014.
• The ‘SEND code of practice’, which provides statutory guidance to councils on meeting children’s special educational needs.
• The London safeguarding procedures.
6. Miss B 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

Law and guidance

7. A child 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.
8. If a child with an EHC plan does not attend school, and the council intends to review the plan, it must invite certain people to a review meeting, including the child’s parent. The meeting must consider the child’s progress towards the outcomes set out in the plan. (Regulation 21, SEND Regulations)
9. A child’s parent should be supported to engage fully in the EHC plan review meeting. (SEND code paragraph 9.177)
10. The threshold for assessment by children’s social care may include when a child’s parent “does not engage with the school and actively resists suggestions of supportive interventions”. (London safeguarding procedures: continuum of need matrix)

What happened

11. In mid-November 2023 the Council’s elective home education (EHE) officer raised concerns about C to her colleagues in the Council’s SEND team. She said no professional had seen him since February 2022, and Miss B had refused a home visit in August 2022.
12. The SEND team’s social care officer decided to seek more information about C. He emailed Miss B, asking to arrange a meeting to review C’s EHC plan. Miss B refused, saying she would only contribute by email.
13. The social care officer told Miss B that the Council needed to see C in person, firstly to check his welfare (as no professional had seen him for a long time), but also because it could not properly review his educational progress by email.
14. Miss B did not change her mind. She told the social care officer that there was no legal duty for her to attend a meeting in person, and no duty for the Council to check on C’s welfare. She said she believed an appropriate review could take place by email.
15. Shortly after, the SEND team sent a referral to the Council’s children’s social work team. It summarised Miss B’s views on C’s review (and her refusal to attend a meeting). It said it had been unable to properly consider whether C’s education was meeting his needs.
16. The Council’s social work team considered the referral but decided there were not enough concerns about C to justify starting an assessment. It recorded that the EHE officer would discuss the Council’s concerns with Miss B.
17. Miss B then complained to the Council (in similar terms to those recorded at the start of this decision statement). But the Council did not change its mind. It said:
• Having sought legal advice (which it summarised in the complaint response) a meeting should take place to review an EHC plan. It referred to, and quoted, sections of the SEND Regulations. It said an exchange of emails would not constitute a review meeting.

• Although a meeting was needed, this could take place at the Council offices, at Miss B’s home or online, depending on what Miss B preferred.
• Miss B was contacted by different officers because they all have different roles and different reasons for contacting her.

My findings

18. Although Miss B says there is no legal requirement for her to attend an EHC plan review meeting, I am satisfied that the idea of a meeting is enshrined in the statutory procedure.
19. The Council has no power to compel Miss B’s attendance at the meeting, of course. But, given that she home-educates C and therefore is essentially the only person who knows anything about his progress, it was not unreasonable for the Council to decide it would not be able to conduct a proper review without her attendance.
20. Given that the Council’s reasoning appears consistent with the law and is not obviously unreasonable – and given also that it offered Miss B several options for a meeting, one of which was online – I have found no fault with the Council on this point.
21. The Council has also explained to Miss B why multiple people contacted her about C’s review. It is unlikely that being contacted by more than one person caused Miss B a significant injustice, particularly as she had requested to be contacted by email. So I will not comment on this matter further.
22. Finally, although the Council’s social care referral does, at first glance, appear slightly heavy-handed (and its social work team took no further action), I note that one of the criteria for a social care assessment in the London procedures is when a child’s parent “does not engage with the school and actively resists suggestions of supportive interventions”.
23. There was no school for Miss B to engage with, but there was the Council’s EHE officer, and Miss B did clearly refuse to attend an EHC plan review meeting, despite several requests from the Council (and explanations why it felt this was necessary).
24. This could be seen – and was seen, by the Council – to suggest a certain resistance on Miss B’s part to engage fully with the Council or to help it with a ‘supportive intervention’ (the review).
25. I am sure Miss B would disagree with that assessment, and I am not saying the referral was necessary; however, nor will I find fault with the Council for thinking it might have been. With the threshold guidance in mind, this decision was not obviously unreasonable.

Back to top

Final decision

26. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman