Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and its linked personal budget. We found fault by the Council, including avoidable delay and unforced errors, that cumulatively caused Mr and Mrs X distress and resulted in the loss of educational provision for their child. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mr and Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of their child’s (C) 2024 and 2025 Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) because:

• It failed to issue an accurate final EHC Plan within five weeks of a 2024 Tribunal decision.
• It failed to issue timely and accurate personal budgets, including clear and flexible parameters for use, for both the 2024 and 2025 EHC Plan.
• Specifically, it failed to secure and adequately fund section F provision about high quality weekly resource boxes with remote teacher communication following a 2024 Tribunal decision.
• It delayed securing and or funding other special educational provision in section F of the 2024 and 2025 final EHC Plan, including:
• termly tutor training by an Occupational Therapist;
• liaison between existing and new professionals; and
• adding further hours of weekly tuition in 2025.

2. Mr and Mrs X also complained about the Council’s handling of their complaints saying its responses were inadequate.
3. Mr and Mrs X said what happened caused significant avoidable harm to C’s educational development and wellbeing. It also caused the family distress and put them to avoidable time, trouble and expense.
4. Mr and Mrs X wanted the Council to secure high quality weekly resource boxes and provide a personal budget to fully fund all the section F provision in C’s EHC Plan. Mr and Mrs X also sought apologies and financial redress for C’s loss of educational provision and the family’s distress, costs, time and trouble. Mr and Mrs X wanted the Council to review and improve its procedures for preparing and issuing EHC Plans and personal budgets.

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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.
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 our final decision statement with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance. I shared Council information with Mr and Mrs X. I also gave Mr and Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decisions. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

Special educational needs

10. A child with special educational needs (SEN) may have an 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 which include:

• Section B - special educational needs.
• Section E - the outcomes sought for the child.
• Section F - the special educational provision needed by the child.
• 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.

11. A Personal Budget (PB) is the amount of money a council has identified it needs to pay to secure the provision in a child’s EHC Plan. Councils can deliver a PB through direct payments. These are cash payments made to the child’s parents so they can commission the provision in the EHC Plan themselves.
12. A council must arrange for an EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. And it must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. The review procedure is complete when a council issues its decision to amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan.
13. People have legal appeal rights against many council SEN and EHC Plan decisions. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers such appeals (the Tribunal).

A summary of events related to the complaint

14. C had an EHC Plan for ‘education otherwise than at school’. Mr and Mrs X had a PB for all the Section F provision in C’s EHC Plan.
15. In 2024, the Tribunal partially allowed Mr and Mrs X’s appeal about C’s EHC Plan. The Tribunal’s decision required changes to Sections B and F of the EHC Plan. About three weeks later, the Council issued an amended final EHC Plan (‘the first 2024 EHC Plan’).
16. Mr and Mrs X immediately contacted the Council saying Section J, the PB, of the first 2024 EHC Plan had not been updated to reflect the changes made to Sections B and F. Mr and Mrs X also sent the Council their proposed PB spreadsheet. Mr and Mrs X said they wanted Section J to be clear, cover all the Section F provision and to be flexible and non-prescriptive in their use of the PB. Mr and Mrs X asked the Council to treat their contact as a formal complaint about both its failure to fully update C’s EHC Plan and its delay in providing funding for the Section F provision.
17. Over the following two months, Mr and Mrs X’s complaint completed the Council’s two stage complaints procedure. The Council also started to work through Mr and Mrs X’s PB spreadsheet. Further correspondence took place between Mr and Mrs X and the Council about the PB, some forming part of the Council’s complaint replies. The parties correspondence included various versions of proposed PBs and comments on them. The Council and Mr and Mrs X also agreed to hold monthly meetings, which would include a Council officer with delegated power to make decisions about C’s education.
18. Throughout the correspondence, Mr and Mrs X continued to say the various PB breakdowns failed to cover all the Section F provision in C’s EHC Plan. Once Mr and Mrs X received two different PBs from two Council officers on the same day. The Council reached the position of telling Mr and Mrs X it would not further change the wording of Section J of C’s EHC Plan and their concerns about “the parameters of flexibility” for using the PB, would be addressed in the PB Agreement. Mr and Mrs X then found the PB agreement sent by the Council did not “clearly detail flexibility” for use of the PB. Mr and Mrs X also remained concerned the Council was delaying addressing their concerns and not providing a PB sufficient to cover the Section F provision in C’s EHC Plan.
19. Meanwhile, the complaint and related correspondence had led the Council to issue a second EHC Plan. This was about five weeks after it issued the first 2024 EHC Plan (see paragraph 15 of this statement).
20. In its final complaint response, the Council had acknowledged it had not communicated with Mr and Mrs X effectively. It also invited Mr and Mrs X to the first monthly meeting and offered to involve an independent mediator. The Council believed the meetings would benefit all those concerned with C’s EHC Plan. It hoped that meetings would reduce written contact and so save time and prevent delay should Mr and Mrs X have concerns about C’s EHC Plan and the PB in the future. The Council signposted Mr and Mrs X to the Ombudsman if they remained unhappy.
21. Following completion of the complaints procedure and five weeks after it had issued the second 2024 EHC Plan, the Council issued a third EHC Plan. The Council said it issued a third EHC Plan because Mr and Mrs X had continued to ask that all Section F provision be set out in Section J. About two weeks later, the Council paid some PB money into Mr and Mrs X’s PB bank account. Mr and Mrs X said they had not yet agreed a PB or signed a new PB Agreement and the Council did not explain what the payment related to and or how it could be used.
22. Further PB correspondence took place. About five months after the Tribunal decision, the Council issued a further PB and Mr and Mrs X signed the Council’s PB Agreement. Mr and Mrs X said they signed the PB Agreement ‘without prejudice’ as they continued to believe the PB did not fund all the Section F provision in C’s EHC Plan. Mr and Mrs X said they remained uncertain about what the Council would agree to fund and so they did not go ahead with some of C’s Section F provision. Two weeks later, the Council made a PB payment into Mr and Mrs X’s PB bank account.
23. A new academic year started. Meetings took place between Mr and Mrs X and the Council at which the PB was discussed. Correspondence between Mr and Mrs X and the Council about the PB carried on into 2025. Mr and Mrs X continued to tell the Council there were omissions and errors in the PB. There were also differences between Mr and Mrs X and the Council when it came to agreeing notes and action points following their meetings.
24. The Council also carried out the Annual Review of C’s EHC Plan and sent Mr and Mrs X an amended draft EHC Plan for comment. The Council agreed Mr and Mrs X’s request for more time to comment on the draft. About two weeks after receiving Mr and Mrs X’s final comments, the Council completed the Annual Review by issuing an amended final EHC Plan in 2025 (‘the 2025 EHC Plan’). Meanwhile, Mr and Mrs X had signed a new PB Agreement, again ‘without prejudice’ as they continued to find the PB inadequate. Mr and Mrs X had also brought their 2024 complaint to the Ombudsman being unhappy with the Council’s responses (see paragraph 20).
25. About a week after issuing the 2025 EHC Plan, Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council. The Council took the complaint through its two-stage complaint procedure over the following six weeks.
26. In summary, Mr and Mrs X complained about the Council’s delay in completing the Annual Review and its continuing failure to produce a correct and sufficient PB. The PB issues included insufficient funding for weekly resource boxes and the omission of funding for the added tutor hours included in the 2025 EHC Plan. Mr and Mrs X said the delay and PB errors showed a continuing pattern of unacceptable behaviour by the Council.
27. In response and in summary, the Council said resource box provision had been ‘discussed at length’ and its arrangements for the boxes were reasonable and most likely to ensure C’s engagement with lessons. The Council also said the allocated budget was sufficient to provide good quality resource boxes, and that view was supported by the invoices provided by Mr and Mrs X. If it became clear the budget was not sufficient for the boxes, it could be reviewed.
28. The Council upheld the complaint about omitting funding for the added tutor hours in the PB. The Council apologised for the omission and issued a corrected PB. The Council said it aimed to agree PBs quickly on issuing or amending EHC Plans, which PB should then remain in place and unchanged until the next Annual Review. It recognised it had issued several PB breakdowns for C’s EHC Plan since the Tribunal’s 2024 decision. This had happened in response to Mr and Mrs X’s queries and comments and because of the detail and complexity of C’s EHC Plan. The price rates for some of C’s Section F provision had also changed and so necessitated amendments to the PB. It hoped the revised PB for C’s 2025 EHC Plan would be in place until its next Annual Review. The Council said it had willingly worked with Mr and Mrs X to resolve their concerns. It did not consider C had suffered harm or C’s family and tutors had been caused injustice by what had happened. Dissatisfied, Mr and Mrs X brought their 2025 complaint to the Ombudsman.

Consideration

Introduction

29. We are not an appeal body and our role is not to ask whether a council could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at the processes a council followed to make its decisions. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of how strongly complainants may disagree with it.
30. As a publicly funded body, we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer or address every question and issue that complainants may have about what a council did or did not do. Here, we held a lot of information about Mr and Mrs X’s 2024 and 2025 complaints. I carefully considered all the information provided by both Mr and Mrs X and the Council. This decision statement does not, and does not need to, address every point and issue raised in the complaint papers.
31. My focus was on whether there was evidence the Council had fallen below acceptable administrative standards and so acted with fault in relation to the issues set out at paragraphs 1 and 2 of this statement.

Failure to issue a timely and accurate final EHC Plan in 2024

32. Mr and Mrs X’s 2024 complaint included the Council’s alleged failure to issue a timely and accurate EHC Plan after the Tribunal’s decision. A key concern for Mr and Mrs X was the PB in Section J of the first 2024 EHC Plan did not reflect the Section F provision. Mr and Mrs X also identified this issue as part of a pattern of unacceptable behaviour by the Council in dealing with EHC Plans.
33. Before issuing an EHC Plan, the Council said its relevant case officer and then the Team Manager checked a Plan’s contents to identify and correct any errors. Once issued, if a parent or carer found an error, it would then send out a further EHC Plan with that error corrected. I recognised the need to make corrections would likely be frustrating for parents and carers, but people do make mistakes. Councils should consider comments made by parents and carers on draft EHC Plans. Here, I found the Council’s procedures for checking EHC Plans suitable and proportionate.
34. The Council said it had had five weeks from the 2024 Tribunal decision to issue C’s EHC Plan and had complied on time. The first 2024 EHC Plan duplicated the document attached to the Tribunal’s decision and was correct and error free. It had also included a PB in Section J. The Council said it then received, worked through, and responded to many points raised by Mr and Mrs X about the first 2024 EHC Plan and the PB. This led it to issue two further EHC Plans over the following two and a half months. On reviewing the EHC Plan, the Council said Mr and Mrs X asked for, and it agreed, an extension of time to comment on the amended draft EHC Plan. It issued the 2025 EHC Plan within two weeks of receiving Mr and Mrs X’s final comments.
35. In considering this issue, the evidence showed the Council issued the first 2024 EHC Plan within five weeks of the Tribunal’s decision. But, while that Plan included a PB in Section J, the evidence showed that PB had not been updated to reflect the changes made to Sections B and F. If the first 2024 EHC Plan had been correct, including Section J, there should have been no need to issue two further EHC Plans in 2024. I found fault here, which fault would likely have been frustrating for Mr and Mrs X.

Failures related to the 2024 and 2025 Personal Budgets

36. Mr and Mrs X said the Council failed to issue timely and accurate PBs that included flexibility in use of the payments for C’s 2024 and 2025 EHC Plans. Eventually, Mr and Mrs X signed the Council’s PB Agreements ‘without prejudice’ as they remained concerned the PBs were insufficient to fund all C’s Section F provision.
37. The Council said it prepared PBs and then, normally, gave parents and carers an opportunity to comment on them. Here, given the complexity of C’s EHC Plan and the PB covering all the Section F provision, it had effectively applied a bespoke approach. Mr and Mrs X had also chosen to prepare their own PBs, which it had needed to consider and respond to as it did not fully agree with their costings.
38. The Council said in practice it always allowed ‘flexibility’ in the use of PBs as long as the use achieved the outcomes in Section E of the relevant EHC Plan. Here, it found Mr and Mrs X sought use of the PB to be set out in absolute and detailed clarity which then left little room for flexibility. It accepted it had taken time to agree some of the PB. In part this was due to the detail and complexity of C’s EHC Plans; the scale of Mr and Mrs X’s queries and challenges; and changing hourly rates/costs. C’s 2024 EHC Plans also included a ‘build up’ of provision. So, as changes to Section F provision took place, the PB had to be reassessed. The Council did not consider the time taken to agree the PBs and complete the PB Agreements was due to its avoidable delay. It also did not accept the time taken affected C’s education as it had made adequate PB payments to Mr and Mrs X to meet the Section F provision. In support of its position, the Council pointed to its most recent budget reconciliation for 2024/2025, which showed a significant underspend of the PB. (Mr and Mrs X disagree with the Council’s position on the underspend. They say the underspend arose because, for example, the Council’s delay led to a lack of clarity about use of the PB. And this meant they could not use the PB money to secure all C’s Section F provision in a timely manner.)
39. The Council said the Section F provision in C’s EHC Plan had now been built up. The volume of correspondence with Mr and Mrs X had also now reduced and its reply times had improved. Mr and Mrs X had contact details for, and did contact, a number of its officers including C’s SEN case officer, the SEN Team Manager and the Head of its SEN service. It had also offered monthly meetings to address Mr and Mrs X’s concerns in a timely manner and to reduce written correspondence. These meetings had not continued given differences about their format, but the offer remained should Mr and Mrs X, directly or through a representative, wish to reinstate them.
40. In considering this issue, I took into account the Council’s officers had limited time and faced increasing demand for SEN and EHC Plan services. Here, C’s EHC Plan referred to the provision of a “highly bespoke curriculum”, which was to be “tailored to activities [C] is interested in engaging in”. The 2024 EHC Plans also said accessing the curriculum would “need a slow and graduated build-up” that should reach “30 hours per week” over the academic year. The Council used words and phrases including ‘complex’ and ‘extremely detailed’ to describe C’s EHC Plan. It also said it was relatively unusual for an EHC Plan to have a PB for all its Section F provision.
41. The evidence showed there was extensive correspondence between the Council and Mr and Mrs X about both C’s EHC Plans and the PB. Given those circumstances, it was highly probable the Council might need added time to deal with the PB and so ought reasonably start to prepare it as soon as possible. Indeed, the Council could have started communicating with Mr and Mrs X about the PB on receiving the 2024 Tribunal decision. However, if the Council had immediately opened PB discussions, I found it unlikely agreement would have been reached substantively sooner than it was given the nature and extent of the parties correspondence.
42. The evidence showed Mr and Mrs X understandably sought clarity in the PB but also suitable flexibility. This inevitably caused tension. Some matters are reasonably foreseeable but it is not possible to anticipate every possible future scenario. During their correspondence, the Council told Mr and Mrs X its approach to flexibility was to link Section F provision with Section E outcomes in C’s EHC Plan. I recognised Mr and Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s response.
43. Ultimately, it was for the Council to determine whether a PB was sufficient to meet Section F provision. I would not criticise the Council for working with Mr and Mrs X and trying to resolve their concerns. But the correspondence continued for a long time without the parties reaching a final agreement. A detailed and complex EHC Plan combined with more than one Council officer’s involvement, meant further errors and inconsistencies were more likely to arise, and did so, as the correspondence continued. I recognised the Council had tried to prevent such problems by offering regular meetings and making senior officers available to discuss Mr and Mrs X’s concerns. These were reasonable and appropriate steps for the Council to take in seeking to ensure Mr and Mrs X received timely responses when querying the PB and its use. The Council’s steps should have helped reduce and better manage correspondence with Mr and Mrs X and so improve timely communication both with them and all parents and carers needing its time and attention. On balance, I found that, in the Council’s overall handling of the PBs, there was some avoidable delay, including through unforced errors. So, I found some fault by the Council in the time taken to prepare error free PBs in 2024 and 2025.
44. The evidence showed the time taken to deal with the 2024 and 2025 PBs was likely frustrating and distressing for Mr and Mrs X. The Council’s evidence showed that PB payments were available to Mr and Mrs X and, in 2024/2025, the PB was underspent. I recognised Mr and Mrs X said they felt unable to arrange some Section F provision while the PBs were not agreed (see paragraph 38). The Council put arrangements in place (officer contacts and the offer of regular meetings) that Mr and Mrs X could access to resolve queries about C’s Section F provision. The evidence also showed the Council engaged with Mr and Mrs X throughout the PB discussions. I had no grounds to find the Council would not have responded to Mr and Mrs X had they contacted it if they were uncertain about making arrangements for any Section F provision. However, while correspondence about the PB continued, there was some uncertainty about some of C’s Section F provision, not all of which was in place or fully in place. The failure to secure all the Section F provision after the Tribunal decision was fault. And, the lack of provision would likely adversely impact C’s education and so cause injustice.

Failures related to resource boxes

45. The 2024 and 2025 EHC Plans included Section F provision for weekly resource boxes. Funding for the resource boxes was included in the PB breakdowns and PB Agreements. Mr and Mrs X and the Council had different interpretations of the 2024 Tribunal decision about the boxes. (Mr and Mrs X consider the difference is fundamental and not a matter of interpretation.) Mr and Mrs X and the Council also disagreed about whether the PB was sufficient to fund the boxes.
46. The interpretation issue concerned the resource boxes being ‘remote’ provision. Mr and Mrs X said this meant a third party needed to prepare the boxes and communicate remotely, that is, not in person, with C. So it was inappropriate for C’s tutor to prepare the boxes, post them and ‘pretend’ to be a ‘third party’ when communicating with C.
47. The Council’s position was that C’s tutors, which included the Lead Professional, were best placed to know about C’s current interests. It had met with the Lead Professional and contacted third-party providers, including the one preferred by Mr and Mrs X, for information about resource boxes. It considered the third-party providers offered a ‘whole curriculum’ support service, used, for example, by people electing to home educate. They would ‘double up’ provision secured elsewhere within Section F of C’s EHC Plan. (Mr and Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s views on third party providers, including about their personalisation of and costs for providing resource boxes for C.) The Council said it had to ensure sufficient funding to meet Section F provision but also had to use public money efficiently and the substantive costs of the third-party providers was not justified. The Council also said when sending and communicating about resource boxes, use of the word ‘remote’ was to recognise C’s neurodivergent profile. In contacting third-party providers, none offered contact with the child receiving a resource box.
48. The Council said the Lead Professional had agreed to prepare and post weekly resource boxes. And this approach provided the flexibility needed for C, whose interests quickly changed. Its approach also ensured the boxes complemented C’s weekly lesson plans. As the Lead Professional posted the boxes it meant C did not know from whom they came and reduced the likelihood C might feel subject to someone’s demands and so disengage with learning.
49. The Council said it had agreed a budget to fund the Lead Professional’s time in preparing and handling the boxes; the box materials; and postage. It was satisfied the funding was sufficient and referred to invoiced costs it had received that fell short of the allocated PB. (Mr and Mrs X said the Council’s costs information could not be relied on as evidence the PB was adequate. This was because weekly resource boxes had not been provided throughout the academic year. And the Council’s own reconciliation spreadsheet showed the cost of pre-April 2025 boxes exceeded the allocated PB.) The Council had told Mr and Mrs X it could review the PB if it received evidence the funding was not sufficient. (Mr and Mrs X said the Council’s 2025 significant increase to the PB allocated for resource boxes showed the original PB had been insufficient.) The Council also said if Mr and Mrs X wanted to use the PB allocated for resource boxes flexibly to source them from an alternative provider, it was willing to discuss this.
50. It was for the Council to determine the amount of the PB and ensure it was sufficient to secure the resource box provision in Section F of C’s EHC Plan. Correspondence about resource boxes and their funding continued throughout the 13 months after the Council issued the first 2024 EHC Plan, and PB, to the PB issued for the 2025 EHC Plan. The Council increased the PB in reviewing C’s EHC Plan in 2025 and after meeting the Lead Professional. But throughout the 13 months the Council’s PB for resource boxes was considerably lower than that sought by Mr and Mrs X. The continuing disagreement about the PB was largely due to the Council not accepting the need for a third-party to provide the resource boxes. Mr and Mrs X continued to challenge the Council on this point in bringing their 2024 and 2025 complaints to us. While there was some avoidable delay by the Council, I found this underlying difference led to the parties 13 months’ correspondence about the PB for the resource boxes.
51. I recognised why Mr and Mrs X wanted to use their preferred third-party provider, finding they would resource high quality boxes and were completely independent of C’s tutors. The evidence showed the Council had considered Mr and Mrs X’s views. It also engaged with the third party, other providers, and the Lead Professional to gather information about resource boxes and their cost. These were proportionate and appropriate steps for the Council to take in considering the issue. Having taken these steps, the Council was in a position to make a suitably informed decision about funding for resource boxes. That decision was for the Lead Professional to prepare and post the boxes. Despite Mr and Mrs X’s dissatisfaction with both the Council’s actions (which they found inadequate and inaccurately recorded) and resulting views, I found no grounds to conclude the Council’s decision was not in line with C’s EHC Plan. I considered Mr and Mrs X’s views about the Council’s budget reconciliation and the 2025 PB increase for resource boxes. However, I did not find the PB had been insufficient to meet the costs of the resource boxes sent to C. But, throughout much of the parties PB correspondence, C received no Section F resource box provision. This was fault and would have caused C injustice.

Delays related to Section F provision – Occupational Therapist (OT) training

52. Mr and Mrs X said the Council had accepted its PBs did not expressly show funding for C’s tutors to attend training. Instead it had later said training time was covered by the PB for tuition. Mr and Mrs X said this lacked transparency and ‘tuition’ funding did not allow them to use that part of the PB for training costs.
53. The Council said termly OT tutor training was included in C’s 2024 and 2025 EHC Plans. But it had accidentally omitted funding for it from the first 2024 PB Agreement. This oversight had been corrected. (Mr and Mrs X said the correction was not made until Spring 2025.) Funding had also been included in the PB Agreement issued following the 2025 EHC Plan. The half term before it issued that PB Agreement had not included any payment for OT tutor training. It later received invoices that covered all the OT Section F provision, including termly training, and so it had been funded through the PB. (Mr and Mrs X disputed that any invoice between Spring 2024 and Spring 2025 included OT tutor training.) The Council said it was not aware of any current issues concerning OT training. It had also told Mr and Mrs X it would not further change the PB, which it considered clearly described C’s Section F provision and its funding. The Council also pointed to its open offer of regular meetings to address any issues Mr and Mrs X might have about use of the PB.
54. C’s 2024 and 2025 EHC Plans expressly provided for OT termly tutor training in both Sections F and J. If the express reference in Section J to such training had been replicated in the PB Agreements, funding for the training would have been put beyond all doubt. But this did not happen. The parties also appeared to be at cross purposes in their written correspondence concerning the time of and, consequently, the PB for, C’s tutors to participate in the OT provided training. I recognised why Mr and Mrs X might question whether both tutor ‘training’ and ‘tuition’ was properly covered in C’s EHC Plan and the PB Agreement. And the Council did not give Mr and Mrs X clear written confirmation that such tutor training was covered by the PB or fully resolve the issue until Spring 2025. It was regrettable the parties did not work together effectively, for example, through discussion, to resolve the issue sooner. However, it was difficult to see how tutor training time and costs would not be covered when the provision of such training by the OT was. Although it took time, the Council had written to Mr and Mrs X confirming termly tutor training would be funded and an original error in the 2024 PB Agreement had been corrected. On balance, I found fault here but did not find it caused Mr and Mrs X or C significant personal injustice.

Delays related to Section F provision – Liaison between professionals

55. Mr and Mrs X said the Council had argued the lack of invoices showed no new professionals had worked with C although it knew this was wrong. In doing so, the Council sought to shift responsibility to them for its failure to make clear the PB covered liaison time.
56. The Council said it would not know when new professionals started or what time they spent working with C, until the Annual Review of the EHC Plan. The PB included funding for the Lead Professional to arrange the liaison sessions with other professionals working with C. It was not aware of any issues concerning liaison between professionals and had funded and agreed all invoices submitted for liaison time.
57. C’s 2024 and 2025 EHC Plans had provided for liaison time but this was not explicitly repeated in the PBs. Mr and Mrs X were concerned that, without express wording in the PB, there was uncertainty about whether funding was available. I recognised Mr and Mrs X’s need for certainty in the PB. Express provision in the PB for professionals’ liaison time would have put funding beyond doubt and without it there was some uncertainty. There was no evidence that professionals’ liaison time had not been funded under the PB. On balance, I did not find this omission caused significant personal injustice.

Delays related to Section F provision – Added tuition hours

58. The evidence showed the 2025 EHC Plan included added hours of weekly tuition. Mr and Mrs X complained the related PB did not include funding for the added hours.
59. In the context of their correspondence, I recognised Mr and Mrs X would likely be frustrated by the Council’s error. While people aim to avoid making mistakes, they do happen. Here, the Council upheld X’s complaint and apologised saying the omission was an oversight. The Council also issued, about three weeks after the 2025 EHC Plan and following a school holiday, a corrected PB Agreement. The Council therefore acted to put matters right without avoidable delay. Although the mistakes should not have happened, so this was fault, the Council’s actions remedied any injustice caused to Mr and Mrs X.

Complaint handling

60. Mr and Mrs X also complained about the Council’s handling of their complaints saying its responses were inadequate.
61. I recognised Mr and Mrs X’s dissatisfaction with the Council’s complaint handling, including the level of detail used in its replies, but the complaints were made, and responded to, against of background of considerable and continuing correspondence about C’s EHC Plans and the PBs. I found the Council’s responses proportionate and reasonable in addressing the main themes and key points raised by Mr and Mrs X in their complaints. I found no fault causing significant personal injustice in relation to the Council’s complaints handling.

Summary and cumulative impacts

62. Mr and Mrs X’s complaints included many issues only some of which are expressly referred to in paragraph 1 and so specifically addressed in this statement. I found some fault in what happened, including the time taken to provide correct PBs and express omissions from the PB Agreements. Mr and Mrs X made clear they found the process unsatisfactory. I considered what collectively happened during 2024 and 2025 affecting C’s EHC Plans and PBs and the cumulative impact of those events. On balance, while recognising the Council had tried to improve effective and timely communication with Mr and Mrs X, I found that taken together, the faults I identified did cause Mr and Mrs X significant personal injustice. I also found fault because some of C’s Section F provision was not secured and this caused C injustice.
63. I considered Mr and Mrs X’s concern that what happened showed a pattern of systemic failure by the Council. I did not find evidence to support this view. Rather, I found what happened related to the specific circumstances of the case, including the parties extensive correspondence. The Council had sought to improve communication with Mr and Mrs X and it was regrettable the offer of regular meetings proved unsuccessful. Because of this I found no grounds to recommend service improvements to the Council.

Back to top

Action

64. Having found fault causing significant personal injustice, I considered our guidance on remedies. To proportionately, appropriately and reasonably put matters right, the Council agreed, within 30 working days of this statement, to:

• send a written apology and
• make a symbolic payment of £200

to Mr and Mrs X in recognition of the distress caused by the cumulative impact of the faults identified in this statement. And

• make a symbolic payment of £2,700 to Mr and Mrs X in recognition of the loss of both some Section F educational provision and the opportunity to receive some Section F educational provision arising from the Council’s fault.

65. The Council also agreed to provide us with evidence it complied with the actions set out in paragraph 64.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman