Summary: Mrs H complained the Council’s Adult Social Care and Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Teams have not worked well together in providing her son with the support he needs. There has been delay, inaccuracies and a refusal to increase support. We uphold the complaint due to delays in assessments, approving direct payments, joint working and providing overnight respite. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for ways to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs H complains on behalf of her son (Mr J). They complain:

• the Council’s Transition Team delayed responding to Mrs H’s emails asking for a social care reassessment before Mr J left his full-time education, by saying it was awaiting a response from its Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Team;
• Mrs H tried to appeal the contents of Mr J’s care and support plan, but her email was ignored;
• the Council completed a carer’s assessment but then delayed sending it to them;
• the Council’s SEND Team responses tended to be vague or inaccurate, sometimes ignoring emails and refusing to implement support;
• they asked the SEND Team to reassess Mr J’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It refused, but said if they got an educational psychologist’s report they would work with that report. But they have not used this report in the Plan;
• the Council’s Transitions and SEND Teams have not worked together. They held each other responsible and Mr J was left without the support he needed;

2. Mrs H says that, as a result of the Council’s faults, Mr J has been left without the necessary support for over a year. And Mrs H and her husband (Mr H) have been affected by the pressures of trying to make his package work.

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. 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)
5. 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)
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. 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)
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted) and the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. Unless there are good reasons, the Local Government Act says we should not consider events over 12 months before someone complains to the Ombudsman. Mrs H first contacted us on Mr J’s behalf in November 2024.
10. The Council issued an EHC Plan in November 2023. But Mrs H complains about issues from earlier than this date. She says that in the months before November 2023, she had health issues that affected her ability to advocate on behalf of Mr J. Given that context, I have used our discretion to look at matters around the arrangements for Mr J’s education from July 2023. This was in the run up to the start of term in September 2023.
11. But the Ombudsman cannot look at the contents of Mr J’s EHC Plans – only the Tribunal can do that.
12. Mrs H also complains about the actions of the Council’s Transitions Team, that sits within its Adult Social Care (ASC) service. Mrs H says the family disagreed with the outcome of a late 2023 assessment. She tried to complain to get this changed but there was a misunderstanding and the Council did not log a complaint. Those matters are within time. For the reasons cited above, I have also considered Mrs H’s complaint about ASC not responding to contacts about arrangements after Mr J stopped attending an education institution.
13. We would normally end our investigation at the point Mrs H complained to us (November 2024). But after this Mrs H made new complaints to the Council about both its SEND and ASC teams. Insofar as those complaints relate to issues Mrs H had already complained to us about, I have considered events in the time between Mrs H’s complaint to us and the later Council complaint responses.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered evidence provided by Mrs H and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
15. Mr J and Mrs H and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

EHC Plans

16. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an EHC Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
17. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section B: Special educational needs.  
• Section D: Social care needs related to the child or young person’s SEN.
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
• Section H2: Any other social care provision reasonably required by the learning difficulties or disabilities which result in the child or young person having SEN. (Where relevant this includes adult social care provision to meet eligible needs under the Care Act 2014).
• Section I: The name and/or type of educational placement.
• Section J: Details of any personal budget required to fund the provision in the EHC Plan.

18. 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). The courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable.
19. 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.
• The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. A review meeting must take place.
• The council must make its decision within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. And councils must issue the final amended EHC within a further eight weeks.
20. If a parent appeals to the Tribunal about other parts of the EHC Plan, they can ask the Tribunal to consider the social care parts of the Plan. If the Tribunal makes a finding on the social care elements, it is non-binding.

Adult social care

21. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve.
22. The Care Act is supported by the Care and Support Statutory Guidance (the Guidance). This says councils must keep care and support plans under review, with at least an annual review.
23. The Guidance says councils can choose whether to charge carers for support provided directly to them. The Council’s policy is to not charge for services provided directly to carers.

Direct payments

24. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs.

The link between EHC Plans and Care Act care and support plans

25. Regarding young people with both EHC Plan and Care Act care and support plans, the Code says:
• the adult care and support plan should form the “care” element of the young person’s EHC plan and must meet the requirements of the Care Act. But the EHC Plan should be the “overarching plan” that a council uses to ensure the young person received the “… support they need to enable them to achieve agreed outcomes”.
• councils should have local systems and processes so that assessment/review of EHC Plans and care and support plans are fully joined up. Councils should make “[e]very effort” to ensure that young people do not have to “…attend multiple reviews held by different services, provide duplicate information, or receive support that is not joined up and co-ordinated”.

The Council’s Multi-Agency Transition Protocol

26. The Council’s “Multi-Agency Transition Protocol: Children with Disabilities and Complex Health and Educational Needs: becoming adults with our care” notes it has a Transitions Team, which is one of its Adult Social Care Teams. It notes practitioners from its Transitions Team are expected to attend EHC Plan review meetings.

What happened

Background

27. Mr J was diagnosed with an autistic spectrum condition when he was an infant. He was later also diagnosed with other conditions. He has had an EHC Plan since 2015 and he attended a special school. Mr J was also receiving care provided by the Council’s Children’s Services.
28. Mr J had his eighteenth birthday in 2022. After, the responsibility for his care needs transferred from the Council’s Children’s Services to its ASC service.
29. In January 2022, the Council’s SEND Team carried out a virtual review of Mr J’s EHC Plan. It did not issue a decision following the review.
30. In June 2022 the Council carried out a Care Act assessment of Mr J’s needs and also a carer’s assessment of Mrs H and Mrs H’s needs.
31. Mr J was receiving personal assistant (PA) support, provided by ASC, for him to access life outside his home and for his carers to get a break from their caring role. In March 2023 the Council carried out a review of its carer’s support plan, as Mrs H advised she and Mr H were struggling with their caring role. The Council increased the hours of PA support to 29 hours a week in term time and 33 hours in holiday periods. The stated reason was to allow Mr J to access life outside the home and to allow Mrs H and Mr H a break from their caring roles.
32. The Council’s social worker advised Mrs H of this increase. She also noted a request by Mrs H for overnight support, to allow respite.
33. Mr J left his school at the end of the Summer 2023 term. After a college placement fell though, Mr J decided he did not want to go to a college from September and instead wanted to pursue a course with an aim to becoming a coach in a specific sport.

Events I have investigated: from after Mr J finished school

34. In July Mrs H emailed the Council’s SEND Team to ask about support from September, as Mr J had nothing in place.
35. Mrs H also contacted the Council’s Transition Team. She advised Mr J was not going to college in September, so he would need extra ASC hours. That Team’s social worker emailed Mrs H advising:
• if she and Mr J wanted additional support from that team, she would need to request a reassessment;
• ASC would need to understand what support the Council’s SEND Team was offering before it would increase its hours;
• she had emailed the SEND Case Officer to ask for an update.
36. Mr J wanted to further his education by training in a specific sporting activity. The Council has advised me its Education Governance Board should have considered a request to provide funding for the sporting activity in August, but this was delayed. In early September, the Council’s Board decided it would not fund the sporting activity, because, without an accredited course or qualification, it considered it a leisure activity.
37. The Council’s Transitions Team chased its SEND Team about funding for the sporting activity. It asked it to reconsider its decision, as it had further information from Mr J and Mrs H. Mrs H also sent the SEND Team some evidence from medical professionals. In mid-October the Council’s Education Governance Board agreed to fund the sporting support for Mr J.
38. Mrs H contacted the Council’s SEND Case Officer noting the agreed sporing support did not include PA support for him to attend. The Officer responded to advise the support would need to come from the PA support Mr J already had.
39. Later in October the Council’s Transitions Team carried out a review of Mrs H’s and Mr H’s needs as carers. It:
• refused their request for an increase in daytime PA hours;
• noted an action to increase PA hours to allow overnight stays once a month.
40. At the beginning of November Mrs H chased the SEND Team about the funding for the sporting activity. The Team’s Case Officer advised Mrs H of its Education Governance Board’s agreement and that this would be included in Mr J’s final EHC Plan.
41. On 16 November the Council issued a final revised EHC Plan. This:
• noted that, as one of Mr J’s special educational provisions, he would “…study toward a course in his area of interest, which [would] lead him toward his long-term aspirations”;
• noted that Mr J’s social care needs included around social interaction, independent living and behavioural difficulties;
• included, in the Independent Living section of Section F of his Plan, special educational provisions based on him attending a classroom;
• said, in the Friends, Relationships and Community Participation section of Section F of his Plan, Mr J needed opportunities to develop appropriate strategies to work on his emotions and reactions to situations;
• noted Mr J’s personal budget was managed via a direct payment. This included payments for fees associated with the sporting qualification Mr J wanted to achieve;
• did not name an educational institution or type of provision in Section I;
• had Mr J’s care needs set out in Section H. But it did not have reference to advice having been provided by ASC (although it did still list Children’s Services’ advice from 2015).
42. In mid-December 2023 the SEND Team’s Case Officer noted an IT error that was stopping completion of the direct payment request.
43. The Council says its Transitions Team has records of receiving an email from Mrs H advising she would be lodging a complaint. Mrs H spoke to an ASC duty manager later in December 2023. The Council said it understood Mrs H had requested a carer’s assessment. Mrs H says she intended to complain. The Council later apologised for any misunderstanding. The Council’s records said its ASC Team would set a task for its duty team to contact Mrs H the following week. Mrs H did not receive that follow up contact.
44. In January 2024 the Council SEND Team’s Case Officer sent Mrs H a form to complete to request a direct payment. Mrs H returned it later in January.
45. In March 2024 Mrs H complained about:
• the lack of educational provision, including the sporting coaching;
• that Mr J was not accessing support with developing his independent living skills;
• that Mr J needed a reassessment of his EHC needs. And she, Mr H and Mr J wanted to commission a private educational psychologist’s report which they asked the Council to then consider and include in Mr J’s EHC Plan;
• a lack of communication from Mr J’s SEND Case Officer.
46. The Council’s complaint response noted:
• its SEND Case Officer had tried to refer Mr J to organisations to help meet Mr J’s need for an independent living skills course. But the Council had not found an organisation that could support Mr J;
• it apologised for any delay in the funding and for the lack of updates from its SEND Case Officer;
• Mrs H’s request for an EHC Plan reassessment. It would need the independent educational psychologist’s report as supporting evidence;
47. Mr J’s sporting programme began in April. The course was for 50 weeks.
48. The Council’s SEND Case Officer unsuccessfully sought independent living support for Mr J, contacting providers in May and August.
49. In August the Council agreed to continue to fund Mr J’s sporting activity for the following academic year.
50. Mrs and Mr H commissioned their own educational psychologist’s report. The psychologist’s report notes the outcome of their cognitive assessment was similar to the last assessment (from 2015).
51. In early October Mrs H made two complaints:
• to the Transitions Team about its earlier assessment and that the Council had refused her request for extra support. She noted she had intended to appeal but had only recently realised the way to do that was through a complaint;
• to the Council’s SEND Team about Mr J not getting independent living support and no communication about an EHC Plan review.
52. The Council issued Mr J with a new EHC Plan shortly after Mrs H’s complaint. Under the “preparing for adulthood” section the Plan said Mr J needed support with independent living and to build relationships. It noted a mentoring programme as a way to achieve those needs (with support from his family). The EHC Plan did not have reference to any advice from its ASC Team.
53. The Council’s Transitions Team carried out a reassessment of Mr J’s care and support plan. It did not agree to Mrs H’s request to increase Mr J’s PA support.
54. Later, Mrs H believed ASC had agreed to increase its support to 33 hours throughout the year. The Council explained this was not the case. Its SEND Team had misinterpreted the Transitions Team’s support, so wrongly entered it on Mr J’s revised EHC Plan.
55. In response to Mrs H’s complaint about the Council’s ASC Team, it agreed to arrange a meeting with the Council’s SEND Team to review support.
56. The Council’s SEND Team’s response to Mrs H’s complaint advised it upheld the complaint about delay.

Mrs H complains to the Ombudsman

57. In November 2024 Mrs H complained to the Ombudsman.
58. The joint meeting with officers of the Council’s SEND and ASC Teams, regarding Mrs J’s EHC Plan was first scheduled for November. Officers from the Council’s SEND and ASC teams did meet before the meeting. But nobody from the Council advised Mrs H its SEND Case Officer could not make that meeting. The ASC team started a review of Mr J’s ASC care and support plan. It wrote to Mr and Mrs H with the reassessment record and some ideas for extra support.
59. In mid-January 2025, Mrs H had a meeting with officers of the Council’s SEND and ASC Teams, regarding Mr J’s EHC Plan. The records of the meeting note:
• the SEND Team’s Case Officer would make a request to its panel to fund individualised independent living support, as Mr J would likely not engage in other more structured support;
• there was uncertainty over where the funding for the independent living support would come from.
60. After the meeting a social worker spoke to Mrs H. Mrs H advised they would like overnight respite.
61. The same day, the Council’s SEND Team issued a revised EHC Plan. It:
• did not name any extra educational provision, but noted there was a direct payment in place so Mr J could pursue his sporting qualification;
• included, as evidence considered, the educational psychologist’s report Mrs H and her husband had commissioned;
• did not have reference to advice having been provided by ASC (although it did list Children’s Services’ advice from 2015);
• said, under the preparing for adulthood section, that responsibility to provide support for developing independent living skills was with Mr J’s family and ASC. Support to build relationships was through a mentoring programme.
62. Mrs H advises they have appealed the contents of this Plan, regarding the lack of independent living support provided.
63. The Transitions Team carried out a carer’s assessment later in January. The outcome of the assessment was the Team agreed to a three-month addition to the hours of PA support, with the expectation that during this time Mr J would work with an NHS Team he had been referred to. (Mrs H says the referral to the NHS Team was only ever about medication.) The Team also agreed for one night per month overnight PA support.
64. The Council’s Education Governance Board did not agree with the individual independent support programme, as its view was it was not an educational programme and had no qualification. It contacted Mrs H making suggestions for alternative educational provision.
65. Mrs H contacted the Transition Team advising that, because the SEND Team had refused the support, the programme in place would not be enough.

Mrs H’s 2025 complaints to the Council

66. One of Mrs H’s later complaints was that the Council’s Transitions Team had not made its increase in hours permanent (see paragraph 61). The Council’s response explained it had decided on a three month increase as it was awaiting the outcome of the NHS referral.
67. In April the Council upheld a complaint about Mrs H’s carer’s assessments, including the review had not explored the outcome of the referral to the NHS Team. And Mrs H had not received contacts from team managers.
68. In mid-May a manager from the Council’s ASC Team spoke to Mrs H, after she asked to make a formal complaint. The manager agreed to consult and then contact her again. A later complaint response apologised Mrs H did not receive an update to that call.
69. In June the Council’s ASC Team extended the provision of the extra hours as it had not taken note of the NHS outcome after the December 2025 referral.

Was there fault by the Council?

ASC response to Mrs H’s 2023 contact

70. Mrs H complains about a delay in the Council’s Transitions Team responding to her request for extra support. The Team advised Mrs H it would need a reassessment before providing any extra support. And it needed to understand the SEND Team’s support. This was the correct approach, for this initial period, as it needed to understand Mr J’s situation to understand his needs.
71. After the SEND Team’s October 2023 decision, ASC carried out a reassessment. That assessment did not find a need for increased support. That was a decision the Council was entitled to make and I cannot question its merits.

The 2023 ASC complaint

72. The Council has accepted some confusion about whether Mrs H was asking to complain in her December 2023 telephone contact with an ASC manager. While the records do not show fault with the telephone call, I do find fault that Mrs H did not receive the agreed further contact from ASC’s duty team.

The SEND Team

73. Mr J’s school had carried out an EHC Plan review in 2022, but the Council did not make a decision following the review. The Council issued a new EHC Plan in November 2023.
74. Most of this period is outside that which I have considered. But the delay does impact on what I have investigated. Mr J ended his time at his school without an up-to-date EHC Plan. A timely review might have led to different outcomes around Mr J’s options. I note the Council only issued a revised EHC Plan after it agreed to fund the sporting provision.
75. The Council’s October 2023 agreement to fund the sporting provision was itself delayed, as the Council had first intended to consider the request at the beginning of August; delayed until the beginning of September. I would have expected to see a decision sufficiently in advance of the new school year to allow provision to begin then. It seems likely Mrs H and Mr J’s social worker would have provided additional evidence (which seems to have been key in the SEND Team’s change in its decision) but for the delay. That delay was fault.
76. The SEND Team took from October 2023 to the following April to put in place the direct payment to fund the training. That was too long and was fault.

Independent living skills and joint working

77. The Council’s SEND Team, as set out in its April 2024 complaint response, was seeking to refer Mr J for support with developing his independent living skills. This was likely because the November 2023 Plan had some provision set out in the most relevant sections of Section F of Mr J’s EHC Plan (albeit classroom based, despite Mr J not attending a formal setting). Later the Council included independent living support in the “preparing for adulthood” section of Mr J’s EHC Plan.
78. The different Council teams were in contact from July 2023, at the beginning of the period I have investigated. But there is little evidence of effective joint working before a January 2025 joint meeting. That fell below the level the Code recommends (see paragraph 25) and was fault. After the January meeting, Mr J did see an increase in provision. Without delays and with better joint working, more likely than not, Mr J would have earlier seen an increase in his provision.
79. Mr J has appealed the January 2025 EHC Plan, taking the contents of the Plan outside what the Ombudsman can look at from that time.

The Council’s use of the educational psychologist’s report

80. The Council issued a new EHC Plan after Mrs H provided the educational psychologist’s report they had commissioned. She complains the Plan was unchanged. I note the assessment report said the cognitive assessment’s findings were similar to the previous educational psychologist’s findings. And if there were parts of the assessment that Mrs H thought should have led to changes in the contents of Mr J’s EHC Plan, that is a matter for the Tribunal, not the Ombudsman (Mr J has appealed the contents of that Plan).

Overnight respite

81. A carer’s review of March 2023 noted Mrs H’s request for overnight respite, as did reviews in October 2023 and January 2024. But it was not until May 2025 that the Council agreed to this request. I understand Mr J’s case was complex. But it took too long to consider that request and agree provision. That delay was fault.

Communications

82. There is some evidence of some missed communications from the Council’s SEND Team, something the Council’s complaint response acknowledged.
83. While Mrs H was generally unhappy with the Council’s complaint responses, I do not see there was fault when compared to the Ombudsman’s expectations for complaint handling.

Did the fault cause an injustice?

84. The sporting provision was delayed. That delay will have been frustrating for Mr J. And in the period when he was waiting for the coaching to start, he was without provision.
85. In the period I have investigated, the Council’s SEND Team did not deliver some of the contents of Mr J’s EHC Plan, namely the provisions around independent living: as a substitute for provision set out in the November 2023 Plan and then directly set out in the October 2024 Plan. Mr J was receiving some PA support for life outside the home, but this was for provision from Section H, not Section F, of his EHC Plan.
86. From January 2025 Mr J’s EHC Plan said educational independence training was partly provided by the Council’s ASC Team. At which point, that Team increased its provision. Without delays and with better joint working, more likely than not, Mr J would have earlier seen an increase in his provision. That missed provision is an injustice to Mr J.
87. The lack of the promised follow up contacts following Mrs H’s ASC complaint is significant, as it was in response to a later complaint to ASC that it agreed to set up a joint meeting with the SEND Team. It was following that meeting that further provision was agreed.
88. The delay in assessing and providing some overnight respite is primarily an injustice to Mrs H and Mr H. This will have been distressing for them and is an injustice that demands its own remedy.
89. There is also some injustice to Mrs H and Mr J in some frustration with the poor communications, notably from the SEND Team.

Back to top

Agreed action

90. Within a month of my final decision, I recommended the Council take the following actions.
• Apologise. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• For the delay in providing Mr J with the independent living support as set out in his EHC Plan (from November 2023 to January 2025) and the delay in the start of his sporting training, make him a symbolic payment of £2500.
• For Mrs and Mr H’s distress in having to cover extra (daytime) caring responsibilities during the same period, make them a symbolic payment of £2000.
• For the distress and uncertainty caused by the delay in assessing Mrs H’s and Mr H’s need for some overnight respite make Mrs H a symbolic payment of £500.
91. The complaint has highlighted poor joint working between the Council’s SEND and Transitions Teams. So I recommend that, within three months of my decision a Council officer (at a sufficiently senior level to make recommendations) reviews what happened in this complaint. They should focus on whether there are any lessons to be learned about how Council teams work together in making decisions about meeting needs.
92. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

93. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman