Summary: We upheld a complaint from Mrs X, finding the Council at fault for how it reviewed a decision to refuse her a personal budget for her son’s education. We also found the Council at fault for its poor complaint handling which caused Mrs X unnecessary time, trouble and frustration. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed action to remedy this injustice, set out at the end of this statement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X’s complaint concerned her son, Y, who has special educational needs. She complained the Council refused, on review, to provide her with a personal budget to pay for some of Y’s education provision for the 2022-23 academic year. Mrs X said Y’s school could not provide him with all the education provision detailed in an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. So, she arranged and paid for Y to have that provision instead. She wanted the personal budget to cover the costs of that, but the Council refused. Mrs X said when the Council reviewed its decision it did not follow a fair procedure and did not consider the evidence she provided. She also said it did not deal with her complaint about this matter properly, conflating it with matters she had not complained about.
2. Mrs X says Y’s education suffered because his school did not make all the education provision detailed in his EHC Plan. She said the Council had not provided her with enough recognition of that lost provision. And it had caused her unnecessary uncertainty, distress and time and trouble through its handling of the review and her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. We 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. I gave Mrs X and the Council a draft version of this decision statement to comment on. I took account of comments they made before finalising the content of the statement.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legal and administrative considerations

9. 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 the arrangements made to meet them. The EHC Plan has various sections. Section F sets out the special educational provision needed by the child or young person. 
10. A personal budget is the amount of money the council identifies as needed to pay to secure the provision in a child or young person’s EHC Plan. A council can provide cash payments to a child’s parents (or the young person), known as direct payments, equivalent to the personal budget. This is so they can then commission (or buy in) that provision.
11. A child’s parent or the young person has the right to ask for a personal budget when the council has confirmed it will prepare an EHC Plan. They may also request a personal budget during a statutory review of an existing EHC Plan.
12. If a council refuses the request, it must set out the reasons in writing. It must also tell the child’s parent or the young person they have a right to ask for a review of the decision.

The key facts

13. Y is a young person with special educational needs. During the 2022-23 academic year, he attended a mainstream school and was in Year 11 of his education. He had an EHC Plan with versions issued in August 2022, March 2023 and April 2023. All these versions of the Plan identified in Section F that Y needed social interaction provision.
14. In February 2024, Mrs X complained to us about the Council failing to provide Y with social interaction provision during the 2022-23 academic year. She also complained the Council had refused her request for a personal budget made in August 2022 (and delayed in doing so). She said the school could not make that provision and so she arranged for Y to join a sports club. She saw this as meeting Y’s need for social interaction.
15. In November 2024 we issued our final decision, in which we noted:

• Mrs X had asked the Council to provide her with a personal budget in August 2022, so she could buy in provision for Y to support him with social interaction;
• that in October 2022 Y’s school had sent a letter to the Council saying that it could not provide Y with social interaction as detailed in his EHC Plan. It suggested the Council instead make this provision “outside the school day”. It supported Mrs X having a personal budget to buy in that social interaction;
• that in April 2023 Mrs X had provided receipts for the sports club Y had joined and took part in;
• that not until August 2023 did the Council provide its response to Mrs X’s personal budget request (as part of a reply to a complaint). It refused a personal budget saying that it considered Y needed social interaction through an after school club or a lunchtime activity as part of the school day.

16. We found the Council at fault for the delay in its reply to Mrs X’s personal budget request. We asked the Council to make a symbolic payment to her in recognition of the uncertainty caused by it not replying sooner. The Council agreed to this recommendation and later complied with it.
17. We also found the Council at fault because it had not offered Mrs X a right of review to its decision reached in August 2023. We recommended a further symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused by this fault. And that it should now offer Mrs X that review. We noted in our final decision that after we made this recommendation, the Council had agreed to review its decision and completed that review. However, we did not investigate nor comment on how the Council carried out that review.
18. In another finding, we found the Council at fault for not ensuring Y received the social interaction provision detailed in his EHC Plan. We recommended a further symbolic payment (of £300) for the “distress caused by the lack of social interaction provision”. The Council agreed to this recommendation also and later complied with it.
19. The Council completed its consideration of Mrs X’s personal budget review request in October 2024. It provided its reasons in an email sent to her in November 2024. The review confirmed the Council’s earlier decision. It did not support Mrs X receiving a personal budget for the 2022-23 academic year to pay for Y’s attendance at the sports club.
20. The Council’s email said that Y’s Plan specified he have “access to a social activity with peers who have similar needs and interests; where relationships can be developed under the direct support of adults; in a naturally occurring situation [..]”. It agreed the sports club was a “naturally occurring situation” but considered the activity needed to be in school. This was because another passage in Y’s Plan referred to him needing support with social interaction in school.
21. Mrs X contacted us in May 2025 to complain at the outcome of the review. She said the review decision failed to take account of the passage of time. When the Council held the review Y had lost all opportunity to take part in any social interaction in school, as he had left in July 2024 after turning 16. Mrs X considered the Council should have provided the personal budget retrospectively, as she had ensured he had some social interaction the school had not provided.
22. We did not investigate Mrs X’s complaint straight away as we wanted the Council to consider her complaint first. So, acting on our advice, Mrs X made a fresh complaint to the Council in June 2025. In this she set out why she considered its review decision of October 2024 flawed. She said:

• it had failed to take account of evidence she provided in August 2024 in support of her request. In this Mrs X said Y’s school did not provide lunch club activities as suggested in its decision of August 2023;
• it had failed to consider the benefits to Y of belonging to the sports club and said professionals working with Y would support her comments on this point;
• it had failed also to take account of the minutes of a transitional plan review meeting held in October 2022, where Y’s school had explained the difficulties it had in providing social interaction for Y. Mrs X provided the minutes of that meeting. Mrs X also sent the Council another copy of the school’s letter the same month which followed that review meeting (see paragraph 15);
• the review procedure was not procedurally fair. The Council had told her in August 2024 it would review the decision to refuse a personal budget for the 2022-23 academic year. But it gave her only three working days to provide it with any further evidence in support of the review.

23. The Council replied to Mrs X’s complaint in July 2025. It said:

• any complaint Mrs X wanted to make about its response to her personal budget request made in August 2022 was late;
• that our earlier investigation had in any event addressed this matter and concluded;
• that if she was unhappy with the email of November 2024, Mrs X should have raised this with our office at the time; and
• that it had concluded it review of its decision to refuse Mrs X a personal budget requested in August 2022.

24. Dissatisfied with that response, Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council complaints procedure. She said the Council had not responded to the specific concerns raised in her complaint made in June 2025.
25. The Council wrote to us in September 2025 saying that it considered it had answered Mrs X’s complaint. It noted our November 2024 decision had found it at fault for not providing Y with social interaction detailed in his EHC Plan; a finding it had accepted. It said that it considered Y would have had some naturally occurring opportunities for social interaction in the school classroom “as part of everyday teaching”. It considered however due to the passage of time it would now be difficult to provide evidence for this. It questioned if we should investigate a further complaint from Mrs X given the passage of time.

My findings

26. I could not make findings on this complaint without referring to our earlier investigation, which considered the following:

• how the Council responded to Mrs X’s initial request made for a personal budget in August 2022;
• how the Council responded to Mrs X’s dissatisfaction with that decision and whether it offered her a review;
• if the Council adequately addressed Y’s need for social interaction provision detailed in his EHC Plan.

27. We upheld a complaint about all three matters finding fault by the Council caused an injustice to Mrs X and Y. We recommended the Council provide a remedy for the injustice. The Council accepted these findings and provided that remedy. As a result, my investigation could not revisit any of these matters.
28. However, it could consider the Council’s review of its refusal of a personal budget for the 2022-23 academic year. Our earlier decision sought to ensure Mrs X had her review rights restored and noted a review had completed. But it did not consider if there was any fault in how the Council conducted that review.
29. We gave the Council opportunity to consider for itself whether there was any fault in the review process. I found Mrs X set out clear reasons for believing there was such fault. She explained that she did not think the Council gave her enough notice of the review, but even so she made representations explaining why she thought its August 2023 decision flawed. However, she said its review had not engaged with those representations.
30. I found the Council did not engage with this complaint when invited to do so in response to Mrs X’s contacts of June and July 2025. Its first response wrongly described Mrs X’s complaint as being about her personal budget request in August 2022. It implied Mrs X’s complaint was late. But the Council knew of its earlier delays which had held up Mrs X’s ability to seek a review of its refusal of that request. It should not have implied the passage of time prevented it considering Mrs X’s complaint. Nor should it have said our earlier investigation covered its review decision because as I have explained, this was not the case.
31. The Council was at fault for its complaint handling therefore. And this caused injustice for Mrs X. In making a complaint, a complainant must always go to some time and trouble. But Mrs X incurred extra, unnecessary time, trouble and frustration in pursuit of this matter.
32. The Council accepted this finding and a recommendation I made for how it could remedy Mrs X’s injustice. I set out the details below in the section headed ‘agreed action’.
33. But next, I considered Mrs X’s specific complaints about the Council’s handling of the review completed in October 2024.
34. I considered the Council at fault for not allowing Mrs X a more reasonable period of time, of at least 14 days, to make representations for that review. However, I did not consider any injustice arose from this fault because Mrs X was still able to make submissions for the review. I found those submissions clear and thought through. So, while I considered Mrs X experienced some inconvenience in hurrying to respond, I did not find there was any material disadvantage caused to her by the short timescale she had to do so.
35. I also found the Council at fault for seemingly failing to engage with Mrs X’s grounds of review set out in August 2024. I did not see any minutes of its discussion of the review request in October 2024. But its November 2024 email communicating the decision did not indicate it engaged with the evidence or argument presented by Mrs X. In particular, it did not comment on:

• the alleged factual error in its decision of August 2023, referring to the school having lunch clubs;
• the minutes of the transition planning meeting or letter sent by the school in October 2022;
• Mrs X’s comments on the benefits Y experienced from joining the sporting club.

36. All these appeared relevant to a decision on review. So, the Council gave the impression it did not take account of potentially relevant considerations in its decision. This inevitably created some uncertainty about whether, had it done so, it would have reached the same outcome. So, there was a further injustice caused to Mrs X here; as we consider uncertainty a form of distress.
37. In considering a remedy for this injustice, I decided against recommending the Council conduct a further review to demonstrate its consideration of Mrs X’s evidence. This was because I considered that even after allowing for Mrs X’s evidence, the Council could still hold to the position that Y’s Plan required him to experience social interaction in school. While Mrs X could reasonably disagree with that position, it was not one I could criticise, as it represented the professional judgement of Council officers.
38. I also did not consider it appropriate or proportionate to recommend a symbolic payment remedy for any social interaction provision Y did not receive during the 2022-23 academic year. Our earlier investigation found the Council had not done enough to engage with this issue when Y’s school made it aware that it could not meet that provision. We recommended a symbolic payment to Mrs X for the distress caused by the Council failing to make that provision in response.
39. Our guidance on remedies explains that where we recommend symbolic payments to recognise a loss of education provision, we do not usually recommend a payment for distress also. So, we do not usually recommend both. In this case, I considered the distress payment Mrs X received from the earlier investigation had remedied Y’s lack of social interaction provision. This was after I considered the provision formed only a small part of a wider package of education Y had. Also, after I noted the Council’s view that inevitably Y would have had some social interaction through his lessons and so on.
40. It also followed from the above that I did not consider I could recommend the Council pay the personal budget requested. Nor an equivalent compensatory sum for the money Mrs X spent on Y joining the sports club during the 2022-23 academic year.
41. So, for the injustice found at paragraph 36 I recommended the Council apologise only.

Back to top

Agreed Action

42. Within 20 working days of a final decision on this complaint, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mrs X accepting the findings of this investigation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology;
2. pay Mrs X £150 for the injustice caused by its poor complaint handling.
43. I considered the facts of this case highly specific. So, I did not find it appropriate to recommend the Council make further service improvements.
44. We reminded the Council of the need to provide us with evidence when it had complied with the actions set out in paragraph 42.

Back to top

Final decision

45. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council accepted this finding and agreed action that I considered would remedy that injustice. Consequently, I could complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman