Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s failure to secure part of the provision set out in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, which she said adversely impacted her child’s transition to adulthood. We found the Council at fault in not securing the provision. To put right the injustice arising from its fault the Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and her child and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Miss X, for her child, Y, said the Council had failed to secure a part of the provision (‘the Provision’) in Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) since Summer 2024. The lack of the Provision had impeded Y’s progress in transitioning to adulthood. It had also caused the family stress, inconvenience and put Miss X to avoidable time and trouble in chasing the Council for action.
2. Miss X wanted the Council to apologise; immediately secure the Provision; and pay the costs of missed Provision to Y as compensation. Miss X also wanted Y’s EHC Plan to include a Personal Budget to fund the Provision in the future.

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. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end, an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. We do not start or continue an investigation if, for example, we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)

6. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended) Here, Y gave written consent for Miss X to make this complaint for them.
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(1), 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).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. Miss X’s complaint included concerns about unpaid invoices for services provided under Y’s EHC Plan. And, as a complaint outcome, Miss X sought a personal budget for the services linked to the unpaid invoices. (A personal budget is the money the council identifies it needs to pay to secure the provision in a young person’s EHC Plan. A personal budget may be delivered through direct payments, which are cash payments made to the young person’s parent. This enables parents to commission the provision in the EHC Plan themselves.)
10. We must normally give councils an opportunity to try and resolve complaints before we consider them. The evidence did not show Miss X had complained to the Council about its handling of her personal budget request before bringing the matter to the Ombudsman. However, the evidence did not suggest the Council had acted with fault in its decision making in considering and determining Miss X’s request for a personal budget and, later, reviewing its decision.
11. In investigating an earlier complaint, we had dealt with Miss X’s concerns about unpaid invoices. Miss X confirmed there had been no further unpaid invoices since our earlier decision.
12. I found an investigation into those parts of Miss X’s complaint about a personal budget and unpaid invoices would not achieve any meaningful and or different outcome for Miss X and or Y. I therefore did not investigate either issue (see paragraphs 4 and 5 of this statement). The focus of my investigation was the Council’s alleged failure to secure the Provision in Y’s EHC Plan. My investigation started in Summer 2024, when Miss X said the Provision ended after the person delivering it could not continue to do so. My investigation ended in March 2025 around the time Miss X first contacted us about this complaint and the Provision restarted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council. I also considered relevant law, policy and guidance. This included the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (the SEND Regulations). It also included the Government’s statutory guidance, the ‘special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (the Code). I shared Council information with Miss X. I also gave Miss X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

14. A young person with special educational needs (SEN) may have an EHC Plan. This document sets out the young person’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 First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) (the Tribunal) or councils can do this. Councils must arrange to review an EHC Plan at least once a year to make sure it is up to date.
15. Councils have a duty to make sure the young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (section 42 Children and Families Act 2014). The Courts have said the duty is owed personally to the young person and cannot be delegated. This means if a council asks another body to make the provision and they fail to do so, the council remains liable. (See R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
16. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and colleges are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to show appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have procedures in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when issuing a new or amended EHC Plan or on changing the educational placement; 
• check the provision at least yearly during the EHC Plan annual review; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns about provision not being in place. 

17. Parents have appeal rights to the Tribunal against many council EHC Plan matters. For example, parents may appeal the special educational provision set out in the EHC Plan and any amendments to such provision.

Summary of what happened

18. Y’s EHC Plan included the Provision, which needed monthly action by a professional person. Miss X said that, in early summer 2024, the person delivering the Provision told her they could not continue to do so after July 2024. Miss X said she contacted the Council about the need for a new person to deliver the Provision for academic year 2024 to 2025.
19. During the school summer holidays, the Council noted on Y’s case the body delivering the Provision no longer had capacity to do so. The Council also noted it had identified another body (‘the Body’) that could deliver the Provision. However, the Council’s notes said it could not refer Y’s case to the Body until it reopened in September 2024.
20. The new academic year started in September 2024. Miss X contacted the Council asking for an update as it had a duty to secure the Provision. The Council told Miss X it had contacted the Body, which had recently reopened after the summer holidays, about delivering the Provision. The Council said it would further update Miss X the following week.
21. About two weeks later, the Body met with Miss X, Y and staff from Y’s college to assess Y’s needs and how best to deliver the Provision. The Body sent the Council and Miss X a copy of its report, with recommendations, eight weeks after the assessment.
22. Two weeks later and near the end of the 2024 autumn term, Miss X complained to the Council. Miss X said the Council had not updated her since saying it had contacted the Body. Miss X also said Y had not received the Provision since July 2024 and this meant the Council was not complying with its legal duties.
23. In considering Miss X’s complaint, the Council found it had not seemingly acted on the Body’s report. It could not verify this as its officer dealing with the Body had since left its employment. The Council contacted the Body and asked if it was available to deliver the Provision and for its costs of doing so. The Council also asked Y’s college for an update of Y’s progress and what, if any, Provision linked services Y was receiving. (The college replied saying Y had made “some amazing progress” and setting out recent changes.)
24. About a month after receiving it, the Council replied to Miss X’s complaint. The Council said it had received advice from the Body and was arranging to put the Provision in place to the end of the academic year in July 2025. (The Council also continued to chase the Body for its costs and about whether it could deliver the Provision.)
25. Meanwhile, finding the Council’s response unsatisfactory, Miss X took her complaint to the second and final stage of its complaint procedure. Miss X said the Council had delayed acting after she told it in summer 2024 that Y needed an alternative provider. This meant it took over four months to get advice from the Body. It had now had that advice for two months and yet Y remained without the Provision. Miss X said she realised continuing her complaint gave the Council further time to stall. Miss X asked the Council to comply with its legal duty and immediately to secure the Provision.
26. In its final complaint response, the Council said it had repeatedly tried to secure the Provision for Y, most recently the previous week. It would prioritise Y’s case once the Body responded. The Council offered its apologies for the delay in arranging the Provision. It also said it would provide further training to ensure officers understood the importance of complying with the law on EHC Plans.
27. About a month later, Miss X complained to us. Miss X said Y had been without the Provision for eight months. Miss X said this was adversely affecting Y’s progress in transitioning to a new college in September 2025.
28. Meanwhile, following a response from the Body, the Council completed arrangements for it to deliver the Provision. It also reviewed Y’s EHC Plan to prepare for Y’s September 2025 college move. The review took account of the recommendations in the Body’s report. And since Miss X complained to us, the Body started to deliver the Provision and linked services to Y.

Summary of what the Council told us

29. The Council recognised the Provision should have been but was not in place from September 2024. But it could not act before September as the Body was closed for the school summer holidays. It accepted that, on contacting the Body it had not asked about its costs or availability to deliver the Provision. And, seemingly, it had taken no action on receiving the Body’s report. The Council said it was not until Miss X complained that it became aware Y was not receiving the Provision. Another officer then took up Y’s case and started a review of Y’s EHC Plan. The new officer also sought information from Y’s college and the Body about delivery of the Provision and linked services. The Council therefore accepted it had delayed matters from receipt of the Body’s report until the new case officer contacted the Body to commission its services after Miss X had complained. However, the Council considered that, if it had not delayed, the earliest it could have secured the Provision with a new body would have been early December 2024.
30. The Council said it commissioned new services from the Body and so it was difficult to predict how the lack of services impacted Y’s education. The Council said Y had continued to receive services linked to the Provision in the autumn 2024 and spring 2025 terms. The Council also pointed to the positive feedback it had received from Y’s college in the spring 2025 term (see paragraph 23). The Council repeated that Y had been receiving services and support linked to the Provision. However, there had been avoidable delay in putting the Provision itself in place and it offered to put this right.
31. The Council considered no other children or young people had been affected by Y’s original provider no longer being available after July 2024. This was because it generally commissioned similar services from a different provider.
32. The Council said it had learned that, when first commissioning services from a new provider, it should also address costs and availability to avoid delay. And, when there was a change of case officer, handovers should identify outstanding actions, particularly those affecting delivery of section F provision. The Council said it was already working with partner bodies to improve services where young people with EHC Plans transitioned from school to colleges and further education. And it had appointed significant extra officers to meet an unprecedented increase in EHC Plan work. This had led to officers now working in smaller local teams, which helped in managing case handovers when people left or were long term absent.

Consideration

33. Miss X said she told the Council about the need for alternative arrangements to deliver the Provision before the end of the 2024 summer term. I saw no supporting information to evidence how and when Miss X did this but I had no grounds or good reason to doubt what she said. And the Council’s August 2024 case records showed it knew about the matter (see paragraph 19 of this statement). I saw no good reason for Miss X to wait until August 2024 to give the Council information she had received during the 2024 summer term. I therefore found the balance of the evidence showed the Council knew it needed to make alternative arrangements during the 2024 summer term and before noting in August the Body was closed until September.
34. I recognised that many people working in education are likely to take substantive time off between late July and early September. So, if the Council had acted during the 2024 summer term, it still might not have secured alternative arrangements before the end of that term. However, on balance, I found the Council had some responsibility for the time taken to initiate action to secure another body to deliver the Provision. Indeed, the evidence did not show whether the Council contacted the Body in September before or because Miss X chased for an update (see paragraph 20).
35. I recognised the Body, before committing to provide services, would want to see Y’s EHC Plan and assess Y’s current needs. The evidence showed that, once contacted by the Council, the Body met with Miss X, Y and staff from Y’s college within three weeks. The Council was not responsible for the time taken between that meeting and the issue and receipt of the Body’s report. However, as the Council recognised in responding to us, it had not asked the Body about its availability to deliver services to Y or for its costs. And, there was no evidence the Council quickly dealt with these matters once it held the Body’s report. Rather, the balance of the evidence showed the Council’s next actions were triggered by its receipt of Miss X’s complaint (see paragraphs 22 and 23). It then took nearly three months to complete arrangements and for the Body to deliver services to Y. Overall, I found avoidable delay by the Council in securing the Provision after July 2024, which was fault.
36. Six of the monthly reviews required by the Provision had been missed when the Body started delivering services to Y. The balance of the evidence showed that, despite the lack of monthly reviews, Y had continued to receive linked services. Y’s college also considered Y had made progress (see paragraph 23) although Miss X disputed this. However, I found there would be uncertainty about the impact of the missed Provision on Y’s educational development. And the time taken to secure the Provision after July 2024 was frustrating for Miss X. I therefore found the Council’s fault caused injustice to Miss X and Y.
37. I thanked the Council for learning from what happened here (see paragraph 32).

Action

38. I found fault causing injustice (see paragraphs 35 and 36). I thanked the Council for recognising, in responding to us, there had been fault and for offering to address the injustice this caused Miss X and Y. I carefully considered the circumstances here and our guidance on remedies. I found the Council’s offered apology and symbolic payment of £200 a proportionate, appropriate and reasonable response to the injustice caused by its fault.
39. The Council agreed, by 16 January 2026, to:

• send a written apology to Miss X;
• send a written apology to Y; and
• make a symbolic payment to Y, or to Miss X for Y, of £200,

in recognition of the uncertainty and frustration caused by its avoidable delay in securing the Provision after July 2024.

40. In recognition of the lessons learned from this complaint, the Council agreed, by 16 January 2026, to:

• remind staff commissioning services from third parties they need to ask them for costs and their availability to deliver those services to avoid delay in securing provision required by EHC Plans; and
• remind staff, when handing over a case to a colleague, of the importance of identifying outstanding actions on EHC Plans to ensure unresolved issues are not overlooked, particularly if they concern the delivery of educational provision set out in section F of a Plan.

41. The Council should consider what our guidance on remedies says about effective apologies in sending its apologies to Miss X and Y.
42. The Council also agreed to provide us with evidence it had complied with the actions set out at paragraphs 39 and 40.

Back to top

Decision

43. I found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman