Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her child received suitable education, at a suitable school placement, or the provision detailed in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X also complained the Council delayed reviewing and finalising her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council delaying for 10 months outside the timescales in reviewing Miss X’s child’s EHC Plan. We also found fault with the Council failing to suitability consider its Section 19 duty, resulting in a loss of suitable education for Miss X’s child, for two full terms. The Council also delayed handling Miss X’s complaint by 11 weeks outside its complaint timescales. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and pay her £500 for the uncertainty caused by the delays in the EHC Plan review, £3,000 for her child’s potential missed education and £100 for the frustration and distress caused through the complaint handling delays.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure her child’s school provided suitable Section F provision as detailed in their Education, Health and Care Plan.
2. Miss X said the Council was aware her child cannot access education at the placement named in Section I of their Education, Health and Care Plan as this school is unsuitable for their needs. Miss X said the Council told her it is consulting with other school settings, and she has requested the Council consults with a particular school, but the Council did not keep her updated.
3. Miss X also complained the Council issued a draft Education, Health and Care Plan for Y in July 2024 but has not finalised this plan.
4. Miss X says “social care” identified a package of Direct Payments for Y but they could not find carers with adequate experience for her child’s needs so the support has never been put in place.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 future 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 how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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)
10. 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.
11. 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)
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 have and have not investigated

13. I have investigated Miss X’s complaint from 6 September 2023 to 22 November 2024.
14. I have not investigated matters before 6 September 2023 because Miss X took more than 12 months to bring these matters to our attention. Miss X first brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 25 November 2024. Normally, I would only be able to investigate matters back to 25 November 2023. I have exercised my discretion to investigate matters from 6 September 2023 because this is the start of the term directly pre-dating this 12-month period. This also takes into consideration the Council’s delays in handling Miss X’s Stage 1 complaint preventing her from being able to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman sooner.
15. Miss X knew about any matters before 6 September 2023 but did not complain to the Council until May 2024. Miss X could have complained to the Council and the Ombudsman sooner about such matters and there is no reason to exercise discretion to investigate further back than 6 September 2023.
16. I have ended my investigation on 22 November 2024. This is because the Council issued its Stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2024 and issued a Final Education, Health and Care Plan on 22 November 2024. A council should be given opportunity to investigate a complaint before the Ombudsman investigates. Since the Council issued a final complaint response on 16 October 2024, the Council has not had opportunity to respond after this date.
17. I have exercised my discretion to investigate matters up to 22 November 2024 because this is the date the Council issued a Final Education, Health and Care Plan. Issuing this Final Education, Health and Care Plan gave Miss X appeal rights about the content of the plan to the SEND Tribunal. This included appeal rights about the placement named in Section I of the plan.
18. It was suitable for Miss X to use her appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal over the educational placement named in Section I of the 22 November 2024 Education, Health and Care Plan. As such, I have not investigated matters related to this, such as the access to suitable education, from 22 November 2024.
19. Any matters after 22 November 2024 would be the subject of a separate complaint. Miss X would need to raise this with the Council first before the Ombudsman could investigate.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

20. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
21. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Rules and Regulations

EHC Plans

22. An Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) is a legal document which sets out a description of a child's needs (what he or she can and cannot do). It says what needs to be done to meet those needs by education, health and social care.
23. Once the Council completes the EHCP it has a legal duty to deliver the educational and social care provision set out in the plan. The local health care provider will have the duty to deliver the health care provision.
24. A person can request an emergency or interim review of their child’s EHC Plan at any time. A council does not have to complete a review on request but it must show it has considered a request. A council should explain its decision about whether it will complete a review of a child’s EHC Plan to the person making the request.
25. Councils should ensure an annual review of the child's EHC Plan is carried out within 12 months of the issue of the original plan or the completion of the last annual review. An annual review is completed when a council issues a letter advising of intention to cease, maintain or amend an EHC Plan following an annual review meeting.
26. The purpose of the annual review is to consider whether the special educational support and educational placement is still appropriate. The annual review is not complete until the council has decided to either maintain the Plan, cease the Plan or amend the Plan. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
27. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.
28. The Ombudsman can look at any delay in the assessment and creation of an EHCP as well as any failure by the Council to deliver the provision within an EHCP.

Alternative provision of education

29. 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. [The provision generally should be full-time unless it is not in the child’s interests.] (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision.
30. This applies to all children of compulsory school age living in the local council area, whether or not they are on the roll of a school. (Statutory guidance ‘Alternative Provision’ January 2013)
31. Suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have. (Education Act 1996, section 19(6))
32. The courts have considered the circumstances where the section 19 duty applies. Caselaw has established that a council will have a duty to provide alternative education under section 19 if there is no suitable education available to the child which is “reasonably practicable” for the child to access. The “acid test” is whether educational provision the council has offered is “available and accessible to the child”. (R (on the application of DS) v Wolverhampton City Council 2017)
33. 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
34. 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;
• consider (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:
• put the chosen action into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.

35. 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.
36. Government guidance on a council’s section 19 duties recommends councils arrange education for a child from the sixth day of absence when a child is absent for non-medical reasons. Government guidance recommends for medical issues that a council considers its Section 19 duty to provide education where it is clear the absence is for more than 15 school days. When a council arranges alternative education on medical grounds, that education should begin as soon as possible, and at the latest by the sixth day of a child’s absence.
37. Our role is to check councils carry out their duties properly and provide suitable education for children who would not otherwise receive it. We do not have the power to consider the actions of schools.

Council complaints procedure

38. The Council handled Miss X’s complaint under its corporate complaints procedure. This procedure is a two stage complaints process.
39. At Stage 1, the Council says it will respond to a complaint within 20 working days. The Council says it will let a person know if it needs longer than 20 working days to provide a response at Stage 1.
40. If a person is dissatisfied with the Council’s response at Stage 1 they can request consideration of their complaint at Stage 2. The Council again says it will provide a response within 20 working days at Stage 2 and will let a person know if they need longer to respond.

What happened

41. In September 2021, the Council produced a Final EHC Plan for Miss X’s child, who I shall refer to as Y. The Council named School 1 in Section I as Y’s school placement and detailed the Section F provision Y should receive. This Section F provision included:
• Education in a 1:1 setting until Y could cope with small class groups.
• A flexible curriculum tailored to real-life and functional skills.
• An Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) specialist classroom with a low stimuli environment.
• Opportunities to develop gross and fine motor skills.
• Speech and Language Therapy to support and production of a structured programme to develop Y’s social skills.
• Occupational Therapy support for sensory processing and sensory diets 1 to 2 times each day.
42. On 23 February 2023, the Council sent a letter to Miss X advising it would be maintaining Y’s EHC Plan following the recent annual review.
43. At the end of July 2023, School 1 contacted the Council to advise it is struggling to get medical input to support Y’s reintegration to school following a medical crisis with Y. The Council contacted the NHS on School 1’s behalf and told School 1 to request an early annual review of Y’s EHC Plan.
44. On 7 September 2023, School 1 held a reintegration plan meeting for Y. School 1 said it planned to complete home visits over the next two weeks to draw up a plan for Y. It planned for Y to have short visits at first and in time build up to full-time education. School 1 shared this plan with the Council.
45. Form 9 October 2023, Y started to attend School 1 for 1 hour each day. School 1 told the Council about Y’s progress on 17 October 2023 and that Y was engaging well.
46. The Council held an annual review meeting for Y on 31 October 2023. The annual review meeting detailed that Y was engaging well with two key members of staff at School 1 and it was working at engaging Y with other members of staff. The annual review meeting also detailed that Y had attended 9 out of the 10 sessions offered since 9 October 2023 but reintegrating Y into school was still a challenge.
47. The Council’s records show School 1 had increased Y’s hours to 2 hours each day by 28 November 2023 and continued to try to engage Y with new staff.
48. On 11 December 2023, School 1 held a review of Y’s reintegration plan. Miss X agreed with School 1 for Y to access 2.25 hours of education each day from January 2024. School 1 noted that Y had accessed most sessions offered and was working towards achieving objectives. School 1 shared this with the Council.
49. The Council sent a letter to Miss X on 21 December 2023 confirming it would be amending Y’s EHC Plan.
50. Y stopped attending School 1 from 6 February 2024. The Council’s notes confirm it was aware by 7 February 2024 that Miss X wanted a change of placement for Y and that it had spoken to School 1 who said they could no longer meet Y’s needs.
51. On 7 March 2024, the Council held a further annual review meeting for Y’s EHC Plan. The annual review meeting detailed:
• Y had stopped attending School 1 from 6 February 2024.
• The support School 1 had put in place for to reintegrate Y into school.
• School 1 had provided a bespoke package of education for Y with a focus on life skills and self-management strategies.
• Miss X wanted a new school placement for Y.
52. In April 2024, School 1 discussed with the Council about arranging for an Educational Psychologist to assess Y. School 1 arranged this for 1 May 2024. School 1 also told the Council it was struggling to get Y to transition back to school.
53. On 1 May 2024, the Educational Psychologist completed an assessment of Y. The Educational Psychologist confirmed School 1 had taken the correct approach at trying to reintegrate Y into school and that School 1 knew and understood Y. The Educational Psychologist produced their report on 15 May 2024. This report reiterated School 1’s concerns that they could no longer meet Y’s needs but meanwhile School 1 was committed to offering support for Y. The Educational Psychologist did not detail they thought School 1 was unsuitable for Y.
54. Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council on 27 May 2024. Miss X said:
• Y was not attending school and not receiving any provision from their EHC Plan.
• School 1 held a meeting on 7 September 2023 to plan for Y’s reintegration into school but did not begin the reintegration plan until 9 October 2023.
• She had complained to School 1 in November 2023 about Y’s lack of education and isolation in school but School 1 simply increased Y’s hours to 2 hours each day.
• School 1 admitted during the annual review meeting in March 2024 they could not meet Y’s needs.
• School 1 promised to provide interim provision for Y since the annual review meeting but this has not been put in place.
• The Council had failed to progress Y’s EHC Plan review and she was unaware of the current situation with this.
55. From 10 June 2024, Y started to attend three sessions each week at School 1.
56. On 9 July 2024, the Council issued a draft EHC Plan for Y.
57. On 30 August 2024, the Council issued consultation letters to seven schools for Y.
58. In September 2024, School 1 confirmed Y was attending three sessions each week but asked for a meeting with the Council to discuss the next steps for Y.
59. On 11 September 2024, the Council issued a Stage 1 complaint response. The Council said any complaints about School 1 would need to be directed to the school. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint about the delays in the annual review process of Y’s EHC Plan.
60. On 26 September 2024, the Council held a meeting for Y’s access to education. School 1 noted that it had offered three sessions each week for Y but Y’s attendance had been sporadic. The Council confirmed it had consulted with other schools but none had accepted Y to date. School 1 confirmed it could only offer the current arrangements for Y which were not suitable to meet Y’s needs but did not want to stop this and leave Y with nothing. The Council confirmed it would continue to look for a placement for Y but if it could not find one it would look at providing a package of measures to support Y.
61. Miss X sought consideration of her complaint at Stage 2 of the Council’s complaints procedures on 1 October 2024. Miss X said the Council had failed to respond to her complaint about the Council failing to provide suitable education or EHC Plan provision for Y. Miss X complained about delays in issuing a Final EHC Plan for Y and for the delays in issuing the Stage 1 complaint. Miss X said the education offered by School 1 was inadequate for Y’s needs.
62. On 16 October 2024, the Council issued a Stage 2 complaint response to Miss X. The Council said:
• It named School 1 in Y’s EHC Plan which it considered to be a suitable school for Y’s needs.
• Since the autumn of 2023, School 1 had offered a reintegration plan to help Y transition back into school.
• There is no medical evidence that Y is too unwell to attend school and Miss X should be ensuring their regular attendance.
• School 1 has reported in September 2024 that Y is attending three sessions each week.
• While it is consulting with other schools, Y is enrolled at School 1 and Miss X should ensure Y attends.
• It was aware that School 1 had told the Council there were no further adjustments it could make for Y. The Council said it was also aware that School 1 said it would continue to support Y until a new placement could be found.
• A full-time placement is available for Y at School 1 even though Y only attends part-time.
• It apologised for the delays in producing a Final EHC Plan for Y.
63. In November 2024, School 1 confirmed it was continuing to offer a bespoke timetable for Y with three sessions each week. School 1 confirmed Y is accessing these sessions and it will continue to make this available until the Council finds a suitable placement for Y.
64. On 28 November 2024, the Council issued a Final EHC Plan for Y. The Council named School 1 in Section I of Y’s EHC Plan. The EHC Plan also detailed:
• A Speech and Language Therapist assessment took place in September 2023 but Y found it difficult to engage with this.
• Occupational Therapy advice from 31 October 2023 detailed that it considered Y had no further Occupational Therapy needs and had discharged Y.
• Direct Payments of 4 and a half hours each week was still on offer to Miss X.
65. The Council detailed that Miss X could appeal the Final EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal.

Analysis

EHC Plan review

66. Following the Council issuing a letter to Miss X on 23 February 2023 advising of its intention to amend Y’s EHC Plan, the Council had 12 months to complete the next annual review. This meant the Council had until 23 February 2024.
67. The Council held an annual review meeting for Y’s EHC Plan on 31 October 2023 and issued a letter to Miss X on 21 December 2023 advising of its intention to amend Y’s EHC Plan. The Council has completed this within the statutory review timescales. However, the Council had six weeks from 31 October 2023 to decide whether to amend Y’s EHC Plan. This meant the Council delayed by slightly over three weeks in telling Miss X about its decision to amend Y’s EHC Plan; this delay was fault.
68. The Council had eight weeks from the letter of 21 December 2023 to issue an amended Final EHC Plan for Y. This meant the Council had until 15 February 2024 to issue the amended Final EHC Plan.
69. The Council issued Y’s Final EHC Plan to Miss X on 28 November 2024. This was nine months and two weeks beyond the allowed timescales. This was fault.
70. The Council’s delay in issuing an amended Final EHC Plan for Y has resulted in a delay in Y receiving suitable, up-to-date, EHC Plan provision. It has also delayed Miss X being able to appeal the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal.
71. I consider the Council should apologise to Miss X for this delay and pay her £500 for the injustice its fault caused.
72. The Council has already put in place a programme of recovery for the delays it is experiencing in reviewing EHC Plans. This has included increasing staffing numbers to improve its capacity to complete annual reviews in statutory timescales. I do not consider any further service improvements are needed.

EHC Plan provision

73. The Council was responsible for ensuring Y received the provision detailed in Y’s 2021 EHC Plan until it either ceased this EHC Plan or amended it. This meant that Y was entitled to receive the full provision from this EHC Plan until 28 November 2024, when the Council amended Y’s EHC Plan.
74. A council may delegate delivery of provisions in an EHC Plan to a school but it must keep such provisions under review on at least a yearly basis. Or, the Council should check these provisions are in place if a person raises concerns that a school is not delivering provisions. Ultimately, a council is responsible for ensuring EHC Plan provisions are provided for a child even when it delegates delivery.
75. The Council named School 1 as Y’s educational setting in Section I because it was a specialist setting for children with Y’s needs. The Council delegated delivery of Y’s education and much of the Section F provision to this school. School 1 has shown the Council it has provided a flexible curriculum for Y in an ASD specialist classroom with 1:1 support.
76. The annual review notes also detail that Y received Occupational Therapy input who discharged Y before October 2023 based on their professional opinion. Since Y received this input and the professionals decided this was no longer needed, this is not something the Ombudsman can question.
77. The Council has confirmed that Y has received no formal input from a Speech and Language Therapist since September 2023 and this has instead been provided by School 1. Y’s EHC Plan is not specific that a Speech and Language Therapist needs to provide Y’s support and this can, in theory, be provided by School 1.
78. The Council and School 1 has shown delivery of Y’s EHC Plan provision. At the least, this was available to Y at School 1 should Y have attended. I cannot find fault with the Council.

Alternative Provision of education

79. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate the actions of a school. I cannot question the education provided by School 1 and can only consider the actions of the Council in relation to ensuring Y received a suitable education.
80. The law is clear that where a school does not make appropriate arrangements for a child who is missing education through illness or ‘otherwise’, the Council must intervene and make such arrangements itself.
81. However, a council does not have to intervene to provide education in all instances of a child’s absence from school. A council’s Section 19 duty applies when it considers there is no suitable education available to a child which a child can access. We issued guidance about how councils should consider their Section 19 duty. The Council should consider a child’s individual circumstances, work with schools and parents to draw up reintegration plans and keep any part-time timetables under review.
82. The Council would have been aware of Y’s attendance issues in the academic year 2022/2023 but this is beyond the remit of this investigation. The Council was aware as early as 7 September 2023 that Y was not attending school on a full-time basis. The Council was also aware at this time that School 1 had a plan in place to reintegrate Y into school.
83. From 7 September 2023 until 7 February 2024, School 1 provided a part-time timetable for Y to access education. School 1 increased the number of hours Y could access school over time and kept Miss X included in discussions about Y’s education. The Council kept oversight of Y’s education during this time through monthly updates through the school.
84. The Council acted in line with its Section 19 duty by considering that School 1 was a suitable placement for Y. The Council kept oversight of a reintegration plan which was showing progress towards bringing Y back into school. I cannot find fault with the Council’s actions from 7 September 2023 to 7 February 2024.
85. From 7 February 2024, the Council was aware that Miss X wanted a new school placement for Y. When the Council contacted School 1 who confirmed they did not consider they could meet Y needs any longer. Y had also stopped attending school since 5 February 2024. This same information was reiterated to the Council during the annual review meeting held on 7 March 2024.
86. There are no contemporaneous notes detailing the Council’s thinking that School 1 was still suitable and accessible educational provision for Y from 7 February 2024. While School 1 told the Council it still wanted to support Y until the Council could find a suitable educational placement for Y, this does not show the Council considered the education on offer by School 1 was suitable for Y’s needs. This is supported by the fact the Council started consulting new schools for Y’s education. In the circumstances, the Council has failed to show that it considered Y’s access to education from 7 February 2024 until 16 October 2024; this was fault. The result of this fault was Y being unable to access any education from 7 February 2024 until 10 June 2024. From 10 June 2024, Y only accessed three sessions each week from until 16 October 2024.
87. Because of the Council’s fault, Y missed one full term without any educational provision. Y also missed one full term with only access to three sessions each week at a school placement the Council had not, at that time, considered suitable provision for Y.
88. Our guidance on remedies for a loss of educational provision recommends a payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The exact figure should be based on the impact on the child. This should take into account factors such as the amount of provision put in place, a child’s individual needs and whether they are in a key academic year.
89. I have considered Y’s individual circumstances and our guidance on remedies. This considers the lack of formal educational provision Y received caused by delays and lack of monitoring by the Council. This is balanced against the provision of three sessions each week at School 1 Y had available from 10 June 2024 to 16 October 2024. I consider, the Council should pay Miss X a total of £3,000 for Y’s missed education caused by the Council’s fault.
90. On 16 October 2024, the Council detailed its consideration to Miss X that it considered School 1 was a suitable school for Y’s needs and a full-time placement is available for Y at School 1. Despite this it would continue to search for a new school placement for Y. The Council reaffirmed its thinking on 28 November 2024 through naming School 1 in Section I of Y’s EHC Plan.
91. The Council has made a decision it was entitled to make on 16 October 2024 that School 1 was suitable education for Y’s needs. The Council has pointed to the reintegration plan in place and the offer of full-time education being available to Y. I cannot find the Council at fault for its decision after this date.
92. Should Miss X dispute the suitability of School 1 for Y, Miss X would need to dispute this through the SEND Tribunal as School 1 was named in Y’s EHC Plan.

Direct payments

93. Miss X complained the Council failed to provide four and a half hours per week of social care direct payments to her as detailed in Y’s EHC Plan.
94. Y’s EHC Plan from 2021 and 2024 details that the four and a half hours of direct payments for social care are available to Miss X should she find a suitable provider to fund through these direct payments. Since Miss X had not arranged for use of these direct payments, the Council has not needed to pay them.
95. Any dispute about the Council sourcing and providing support for Y rather than providing direct payments is a matter for the SEND Tribunal.

Complaint handling

96. Miss X made a Stage 1 complaint to the Council on 27 May 2024. This meant the Council had until 24 June 2024 to provide a Stage 1 complaint response. The Council failed to provide a Stage 1 complaint response until 11 September 2024. This was 11 weeks outside the Council’s complaint timescales; this was fault.
97. Miss X sought consideration of her complaint at Stage 2 on 1 October 2024. The Council provided its Stage 2 complaint response on 16 October 2024. The Council responded within its complaint timescales and I do not find fault.
98. The Council’s delays in handling Miss X’s complaint will have caused her frustration and distress. The Council should apologise to Miss X and pay her £100 in recognition of the distress and frustration.

Back to top

Action

99. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Provide an apology and a payment of £500 to Miss X for the delays of around ten months in reviewing her child’s EHC Plan.
• Provide a payment to Miss X of £3,000 for the failure of the Council to suitability consider its Section 19 duty and the resultant loss of suitable education for her child covering two terms from 7 February 2024 to 16 October 2024.
• Provide an apology and a payment of £100 to Miss X for the 11 weeks of delays in handling Miss X’s complaint.
100. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

101. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council accepted my recommendations, I have completed my investigation as I consider that a suitable remedy.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman