Suffolk County Council (24 010 672)

Category : Education > Special educational needs

Decision : Upheld

Decision date : 09 Jun 2025

The Ombudsman's final decision:

Summary: The Council failed to arrange the transitional support that Ms X’s child, G, needed when they started school. The Council also failed to communicate with Ms X properly, delayed consulting alternative schools and delayed issuing G’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council’s faults caused G to miss out on a term of transitional support and caused Ms X and G frustration and uncertainty. To recognise the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £800 and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

  1. Ms X complains that the Council:
    • Failed to put in place transitional support for her child, G, when they returned to school;
    • Significantly delayed consulting alternative school placements; and
    • Repeatedly failed to keep in contact with her about her child’s education.
  2. Ms X said the Council’s faults have caused her child to miss out on months of educational support, caused Ms X’s employment to be affected and caused the family uncertainty and distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
  4. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
  5. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
  6. 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

How I considered this complaint

  1. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
  2. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. Any comments were considered before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Education, Health and Care Plans

  1. A young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This sets out their needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
  2. 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.
  3. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). 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.
  4. The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  

Annual reviews

  1. The Statutory Guidance: Special Educational needs and disability code of practice: 0-25 years (“the Code”) says:
    • EHC plans must be reviewed as a minimum every 12 months (para 9.166);
    • within four weeks of the review meeting the council must decide whether it proposes to keep the EHC plan as it is, amend the plan or cease to maintain it, and notify the child’s parent or young person and the educational setting (para 9.176);
    • if the plan needs amending, councils should start the process of amendment without delay (para 9.176);
    • if amending the plan, councils must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing plan and a notice providing details of the proposed amendments, and they must be given at least 15 calendar days to comment on the proposed changes (paras 9.194 & 9.195).
  2. Within twelve weeks of the annual review meeting, the final, amended EHC plan must be issued. R (L, M and P) v Devon County Council [2022] EWHC 493 (Admin)

What happened

Background

  1. G has special educational needs as well as anxiety. G has an EHC Plan which sets out the support they need in school.
  2. After being out of school for some time due to emotionally based school avoidance, they were due to transition to a new school, School A.
  3. G’s EHC Plan said while at School A, they would start on a reduced timetable and gradually increase this. It also said G would access around ten minutes of support each day from a key adult or mentor. This support was meant to encourage and assist them with their transition back into school.

Key events

  1. When G started at School A, the mentoring service said it could no longer provide the planned support. The Council was informed of this shortly before G was due to start. G started at School A regardless but did not receive this additional support and had an initially challenging period settling into the school.
  2. Ms X said because G did not have the necessary support in place and they were experiencing distress, this affected her employment and was a challenging time for the family.
  3. The Council was in regular communication with Ms X in the first month of school but the following month, Ms X had to chase several times for updates on transitional support for G.
  4. The records show the Council spoke with the external service and consulted other providers to try and find alternative mentor support for G over several months but had difficulty finding a replacement service. G did not receive any of the mentor assistance in their first term. They had the support in place in their remaining two terms of that school year.
  5. Due to unforeseen circumstances, School A said it would have to stop taking on students starting from the following academic year. As a result, the Council held an emergency annual review of G’s EHC Plan. At the annual review it was agreed the Council would consult alternative schools for G.
  6. Ms X asked the Council for an update on its consultations almost three months after the emergency annual review was held. On the same day Ms X asked for an update, the Council began consulting for schools for G. Ms X chased for the Council for an update several times and it was around two months before she received a response.
  7. Ms X complained to the Council at stage one of its complaints process. She said:
    • The Council failed to put the transitional support in place for G which caused them distress and affected Ms X being able to return to work;
    • It delayed consulting schools by several months following the emergency annual review. This led to G not having a school place arranged for the following academic year; and
    • The SEND caseworker had failed to keep in contact with her.
  8. The Council responded and said:
    • Schools are responsible for organising transition packages and liaising with new schools;
    • It apologised for its caseworkers’ poor communication with her and said this was due to extremely high caseloads and staff shortages;
    • The current package of alternative provision including mentoring and tutoring would remain in place while the Council sought a suitable school for G; and
    • It would finalise G’s EHC Plan soon.
  9. The Council made Ms X an offer of a school place for G in time for them to start in the upcoming academic year. Ms X declined this placement.
  10. Following the emergency annual review, it took the Council 29 weeks to finalise G’s EHC Plan. The Plan set out the alternative provision G would receive.

Recent LGSCO cases involving Suffolk County Council

  1. In several recent cases covering a similar period to this one, the Ombudsman has found fault with Suffolk County Council for delayed annual reviews and a failure to arrange the provision in section F of EHC Plans.
  2. In response, the Council agreed to carry out service improvements that would not yet have taken place during the period Ms X has complained of. For this reason, I have not repeated the same service improvements here.

My findings

Missed transitional support

  1. When the mentoring service could no longer provide G’s planned transitional support, the Council struggled to find another service to provide this within a reasonable timeframe. This was service failure by the Council.
  2. This service failure caused G to miss out on the daily transitional support they should have received for their entire first term back at school. While the provision was only for a very brief period each day, this was an injustice to G. This is because the support was meant to be in place to help them overcome a period of anxiety and emotionally-based school avoidance.
  3. The Council also said in its complaint response that it was the school’s responsibility to organise transitional support rather than the Council’s. This statement is not in line with the relevant law and guidance and was fault. The Council had a duty to ensure G received the section F provision in their EHC Plan and this duty was non-delegable. The daily mentor support was in section F of G’s EHC Plan.
  4. This view outlined by the Council in the complaint response is not reflected in the Council’s casework, where the Council took responsibility for finding an alternative mentor for G once it became aware it was not in place. However providing Ms X with incorrect information in this way caused Ms X avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

Delay consulting schools

  1. The Council did not start consulting alternative schools for G until three months after it said it would. This delay was fault by the Council. I cannot say even on balance whether G would have had a school place in time for the upcoming academic year if not for the fault. This is because Ms X later rejected a school place offered and there are other factors that are difficult to predict which can affect when a child is matched with a school place. However this fault has caused Ms X and G significant uncertainty about whether G could have had a school place sooner and this is an injustice to them.

Communication

  1. At times the Council’s communication with Ms X was poor, including when she chased it for updates about the Council’s progress with consulting other schools. The case records show that while there were periods of regular communication with Ms X, there were periods where she then had to chase repeatedly for information. This lack of communication was fault and this caused Ms X frustration.

Delayed annual review process

  1. A final, amended EHC Plan should be issued within twelve weeks of an annual review meeting. In this case, it took the Council 29 weeks. This delay was fault and this caused Ms X further avoidable frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

  1. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
      1. apologise for the injustice caused by the faults in this case;
      2. Pay Ms X £300 to reflect the frustration and uncertainty she has been caused; and
      3. Pay Ms X £500 to reflect the entire first term of transitional support that G missed, at a crucial time in their return to school.
  2. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
      1. Remind relevant staff in its SEND and complaint handling teams that the Council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan and this duty is non-delegable. The Council should not inform parents or carers that this is the responsibility of the school.
  3. The Council has agreed to provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

  1. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Print this page

LGO logogram

Review your privacy settings

Required cookies

These cookies enable the website to function properly. You can only disable these by changing your browser preferences, but this will affect how the website performs.

View required cookies

Analytical cookies

Google Analytics cookies help us improve the performance of the website by understanding how visitors use the site.
We recommend you set these 'ON'.

View analytical cookies

In using Google Analytics, we do not collect or store personal information that could identify you (for example your name or address). We do not allow Google to use or share our analytics data. Google has developed a tool to help you opt out of Google Analytics cookies.

Privacy settings