Summary: Miss X complained that the Council failed to provide the required special educational needs provision in accordance with her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X also complained that there was a delay in providing her daughter with alternative education when her school ended her daughter’s placement. We have found no fault and therefore are closing the complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained, on behalf of her daughter, that the Council failed:
1. to investigate properly her concerns about the way her daughter (Y) was treated at her previous educational placement, School Z;
2. delayed in finding Y an alternative placement when School Z terminated her placement; and
3. failed to make the required provision set out in Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
2. Miss X says that the Council’s failures resulted in safeguarding issues and caused significant avoidable distress and a loss of EHC Plan provision for Y.

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.
4. 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).
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than twelve months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended).
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability-SEND) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. We also will not normally investigate a complaint whereby the complainant had an alternative remedy by means of appeal to the SEND Tribunal unless we consider that there are reasons why the complainant could not resort to this remedy.
8. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools unless it relates to special educational needs, when the schools are acting on behalf of the council to secure educational provision as set out in Section F of the young person’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
9. 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(1), as amended).
10. 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

11. Miss X complained to us in February 2025, having complained to the Council first in June 2024.
12. I have looked at events from February 2024, which is twelve months since the complainant complained to us, to July 2025 when the Council issued an amended final EHC Plan. At this point, Miss X had the opportunity to appeal to the SEND Tribunal if dissatisfied with the EHC Plan.
13. Miss X also had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal in mid-November 2024 when the Council issued an amended EHC Plan, naming a different placement. If Miss X was not satisfied with the new placement, she had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal about this.
14. Miss X did not appeal at this point. I cannot investigate any dissatisfaction Miss X might have had with the named placement, or content of the new EHC Plan, because she had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal which I consider it was reasonable for her to use. But I can look at Miss X’s concerns about any delay in arranging alternative education and ensuring the provision in Y’s EHC Plan was made available.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance, as set out below. Miss X has provided detailed information including her complaints about School Z. I have spoken to Miss X on the telephone and sought information from the Council.
16. I issued a draft decision statement to Miss X and to the Council. I have taken into account their comments before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Education, Health and Care Plans

17. 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.
18. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
• Section I: The educational placement or type of placement.
• Section J: Details of any personal budget made. 

19. 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).

Annual reviews

20. Councils oversee delivery of EHC Plans through annual reviews, whether by attending meetings themselves, or by reviewing the school’s records of meetings. The statutory Code of Special Educational Needs says reviews must be undertaken in partnership with the child and their parent.
21. EHC Plans must be reviewed, as a minimum, every twelve months. The review must consider whether the stated outcomes and supporting targets remain appropriate. Earlier reviews can take place where it is considered a child’s needs may have changed or the stated outcomes are not being achieved.
22. After the review, the Council has four weeks to send the child’s parents its decision about whether the EHC Plan is to continue; whether it needs changing or if it is to end. If the Council decides to amend the EHC Plan, it must do that “without delay”. A recent court case stated it should take twelve weeks from the annual review to complete an amended final EHC Plan.

Key facts of this complaint

23. Y has longstanding physical and mental health needs. She suffers from chronic tiredness and pain. The complexity, severity and persistence of her needs impact on her education and social and family life.
24. At the time of the events of this complaint, Y had an EHC Plan naming School Z with staff being responsible for meeting her special educational needs (SEN). At the end of 2023, School Z said Y was a good student, helpful and wanting to be in school.
25. There was an annual review in April 2024. The minutes of this meeting recorded that Y was enjoying her time at School Z and doing well. It was agreed that there would be no amendments to EHC Plan. The Council has confirmed that it was unaware of any concerns Miss X might have had about School Z’s ability to meet Y’s SEN at this time.
26. In May 2024, Miss X did raise concerns with School Z about the examination arrangements for Y which was not in keeping with her EHC Plan. School Z arranged a meeting with Miss X to discuss and resolve this.
27. In September 2024, Miss X says that School Z introduced a new rule whereby pupils had to wear specific uniform. Miss X says that this was introduced without any explanation or pre-warning. Y and other pupils were initially unwilling to change uniform. Miss X says that Y’s SEN meant she struggled with change and her sensory needs made it difficult for her to wear particular clothing. Miss X spoke to Y on the telephone and overhead a member of staff shouting at Y and other pupils. Miss X was very concerned by what she heard.
28. Y stopped attending School Z after this.
29. Miss X raised a safeguarding concern directly with School Z, with the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) in the school’s council area (different to the Council), and with Ofsted. The Council became aware of Miss X’s concerns, and the Council’s EHC co-ordinator contacted School Z.
30. The Council arranged a meeting for October 2024 with the EHC co-ordinator, Miss X and School Z. The Council says that the purpose was to discuss the concerns and look for a way forward to support Y at the placement. Miss X stated that Y wanted to return to School Z and that it was promised that she could. At this meeting, Miss X raised her concerns about School Z’s failure to meet Y’s SEN in accordance with her EHC Plan. School Z said that it felt it had dealt with the concerns and was willing to make appropriate arrangements for Y’s examinations.
31. At the end of the meeting, unexpectedly School Z withdrew the placement for Y explaining its reasons directly to Miss X and Y, referring to a breakdown in the relationship. The next day School Z confirmed this decision in writing to the Council.
32. Miss X says that a particular member of staff at School Z at this meeting behaved in a way which she said was harmful to Y and made her cry. Miss X is concerned that the Council did not record this.
33. After the meeting, the EHC co-ordinator contacted Miss X. Miss X said that she had looked at other placements and that she wanted Y to attend a different placement three times a week, Provider B. The EHC co-ordinator contacted Provider B.
34. After the meeting, the EHC co-ordinator also sent an email to her manager about the concerns Miss X had raised about School Z. The co-ordinator did not refer to the fact that Y was distressed at this meeting. But the note covered the main issues which Miss X had raised.
35. In mid-November 2024, the Council amended and issued the final EHC Plan naming Provider B. Miss X asked for school transport for Y to Provider B. Y had received school transport to travel to School Z. The Council told Miss X that she needed to complete a new transport application form. The Council says that a personal travel budget was offered at the beginning of December 2024.
36. In mid-November 2024, Y made a formal complaint to the Council about School Z’s failure to provide for her SEN provision, namely her support strategies, mental health wellbeing, sensory needs and Y’s social and independent living skills. Y claimed that she had been discriminated against, and she asked the Council to investigate her concerns.
37. The Council replied at the end of November 2024. It explained that School Z fell within its alternative education provision framework and had been inspected by its commissioner in October 2023, and no concerns were raised. School Z had also been inspected by Ofsted in the summer of 2024 and no concerns raised. The Council also provided details of School Z’s account of what had been provided to Y under her EHC Plan and why School Z decided to end the placement.
38. Y was dissatisfied and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the Council’s corporate complaints’ procedure. Y highlighted numerous errors in the information provided by School Z to the Council and stated that she had abided by the school rules.
39. In January 2025, the Council sent its stage two complaint response. The Council stated that it had tried to resolve the situation with the aim that Y could return to School Z, with support to her, and to the school. But it was School Z’s decision to end the placement. The Council also stated that there had been no delay in arranging alternative provision after School Z ended Y’s placement.
40. In January 2025, Miss X asked for a personal budget so that she could arrange Y’s education. Miss X says that she wanted Y to receive online science tuition from a hospital school who knew Y. The Council says that this would not have been possible because the hospital school only provided tuition to pupils over the age of sixteen. But the hospital school could help with any examination arrangements.
41. The Council’s multi agency panel declined the request for a personal budget because Y’s EHC Plan stated attendance at Provider B was only three times per week, and this was considered suitable and paid for. The EHC co-ordinator discussed this with Miss X to explain the rationale.
42. At the end of January 2025, Miss X explained that Y would need a taxi to enable her to get to Provider B. The Council said that there would need to be a review of the EHC Plan given Y was now unable to attend Provider B. Miss X asked for Y’s therapist to attend any meeting.
43. The Council held an annual review at the beginning of March 2025. Miss X stated that Y no longer wanted to attend Provider B, and Miss X asked for an Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) package. Miss X told the Council that the previous request for a personal budget remained unchanged. The Council subsequently agreed to this.
44. At the beginning of May 2025, the Council sent a draft EHC Plan to Miss X naming the EOTAS package. Miss X responded the same day. The Council issued a final EHC Plan in mid-May 2025.
45. Miss X raised a concern about the EHC Plan being finalised because the Council had not considered certain medical advice. The Council agreed to review the personal budget. At the end of June 2025, the Council agreed the additional items requested by Miss X. The Council issued a draft amended EHC Plan and finalised this in July 2025, having received no comments on the draft from Miss X.

Findings: Complaint (a): failure to investigate Miss X’s concerns about School Z

46. The Council only became aware of Miss X’s concerns about School Z after the incident in September 2024. I cannot see evidence that the Council was aware of any concerns prior to this date. I recognise that Miss X raised concerns directly with School Z in May 2024 which School Z responded to. But the Council was not informed of these concerns.
47. Therefore, my view is that there is no fault by the Council before September 2024.
48. Once the Council became aware of the safeguarding incident in September, it arranged a meeting with School Z, and with Miss X and Y, to try to resolve the matter. Y wanted to return to School Z and the Council’s plan was to try to support the placement.
49. I recognise that Miss X considers this meeting was poorly handled by the Council, and expectations of a return may have been raised. I also recognise that Y had been a good student, so I understand why she and Miss X thought a return to School Z should be allowed.
50. But I consider that there is no fault by the Council. It tried to resolve the difference of view between Miss X, Y and the school albeit without success. It was School Z’s decision to end the placement, and the Council decided it could take no further action. Instead, it supported Miss X and Y in looking for an alternative placement and explained that it could not investigate conduct complaints about School Z’s staff.
51. The Council noted Miss X’s safeguarding concerns about School Z, but it considered that it was for the LADO of the other council to investigate this. And it was for the LADO to decide who it should interview for its investigation.
52. I consider that this was appropriate. And, if Miss X has concerns about this LADO investigation, she could make a separate complaint to the relevant council.
53. Accordingly, I consider there is no fault by the Council.

Complaint (b): delayed in finding an alternative placement when School Z ended Y’s placement

54. The Council and Miss X acted quickly to find an alternative placement in keeping with Miss X’s request. I do not consider the Council unduly delayed in agreeing the placement at Provider B, so I do not find fault. It was also not fault that Miss X had to complete another transport application form. This would be standard practice when there is a change of placement.

Complaint (c): delayed in making the provision set out in Y’s EHC Plan

55. I consider there is no fault by the Council in making the necessary EHC provision for Y up to September 2024.
56. After School Z ended Y’s placement in October 2024, Miss X and the Council acted quickly in finding a placement at Provider B. In mid-November 2024, the Council issued an amended final EHC Plan naming this placement. If Miss X considered this placement would not meet Y’s needs, she could have appealed to the SEND Tribunal. On that basis, I cannot investigate this aspect of the complaint.
57. In January 2025, Miss X stated that she did not consider Provider B was providing sufficient education. The Council decided that a further review of Y’s EHC Plan was required. This was an appropriate response and there is no fault by the Council.
58. After the review, it was decided that Y could no longer attend Provider B, at her request, and the Council agreed with the request for an EOTAS package. This led to the Council issuing a final EHC Plan in July 2025 naming an EOTAS package.
59. Miss X had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal at this point, so I cannot consider any complaints about this provision.
60. While I recognise that losing the placement at School Z was a significant disappointment for Y, and for Miss X, I consider the Council initially tried to support that placement and Y’s return. When this failed, the Council has tried to ensure Y continued to receive appropriate provision since then in accordance with her EHC Plan. Accordingly, I do not find fault.

Back to top

Decision

61. I do not find fault causing injustice. Therefore, I will close the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman