Summary: Ms Y complained about the way the Council handled her son’s post 16 Education, Health and Care plan. We found the Council at fault. The Council had acknowledged a delay in issuing the plan and had offered a recognition payment. It has agreed to make an additional payment to appropriately address the injustice caused and to carry out service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains the Council did not issue a post 16 Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan for her son when it should have. She says the delay caused stress and uncertainty for her and her son. Ms Y describes her son’s need for stability and how not knowing if he would have a placement in September caused him avoidable distress.
2. She complains this also meant she was late applying for transport for her son, so he was without transport for two weeks. Ms Y had to drive her son to and from college each day which put a strain on her as this was during her working hours.

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 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 evidence provided by Ms Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms Y and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

7. 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. 
8. For young people moving from secondary school to a post-16 institution or apprenticeship, the council must review and amend the EHC Plan – including specifying the post-16 provision and naming the institution – by 31 March in the calendar year of the transfer.

Background

9. Ms Y’s son, X, is a young person with an EHC plan. He was due to leave secondary school in 2024, so his post-16 EHC plan was due to be issued by 31 March 2024.
10. The plan was not issued until 18 July, and the school year ended 5 days later.
11. The EHC plan named X’s college placement. Ms Y says X’s mental health was impacted by the uncertainty caused by not knowing this until July. She says his autism meant this caused X considerable anxiety.
12. Ms Y could not apply for school transport until the plan had been issued as she did not know which college he would be given a place at. The delay in applying meant transport was not available for X until two weeks after his college course began.
13. Ms Y says X missed out on transition to the college due to how late the plan was issued.
14. Once X’s course began in September 2024, Ms Y drove him to and from college every day, which is a distance of almost 65 miles a day.

Analysis and findings

15. The Council is required to issue a post-16 EHC plan by 31 March of the child’s final year at school. The Council’s failure to do this is fault.
16. The delay caused an injustice to Ms Y as she should have known which college had been named for her son five months sooner than she did. This caused her worry about whether a suitable placement would be found, distress at the impact this was having on her son, and the inconvenience of chasing the Council repeatedly.
17. Where we find fault has caused an injustice, we consider whether we should recommend a remedy. A recognition payment of £250 is appropriate to acknowledge the injustice caused to Ms Y.
18. The Council’s delay also impacted X. He is autistic and the uncertainty caused him significant anxiety. He also missed out on the opportunity to attend transition days and familiarise himself with the college before he started in September.
19. A recognition payment of £250 for X’s injustice is appropriate here.
20. The delay also impacted X’s transport to college in September. X’s injustice here was limited as Ms Y drove him to and from college for those two weeks.
21. Ms Y has described the distress she was caused as she had to drive X to and from college during working hours. A payment of £200 to address the fuel costs incurred is appropriate here. A payment of £100 in recognition of the avoidable worry and inconvenience caused is also appropriate.

The Council’s response

22. The Council has accepted the plan was not issued when it should have been, and that it caused the delay in applying for transport.
23. The Council offered £250 in recognition of the avoidable distress and inconvenience its five month delay caused to Ms Y and to X.
24. The Council also acknowledged the lack of transport for two weeks was an injustice arising from its fault. It offered £200 in recognition of this. It has therefore paid a total of £450 to Ms Y.

Back to top

Agreed Action

25. Within one month of the decision:
• the Council should make an additional payment of £350, as explained above;
• the Council will remind all relevant staff of the need to respond to correspondence appropriately;
26. The Council has provided evidence it has reminded all relevant staff of the timelines within which a post-16 EHC plan must be issued.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above two actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to provide a further remedy and carry out service improvements.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman