Summary: The Council was at fault in the way it handled the transfer and review of Y’s EHCP, the provision of SEN support, education while out of school, and aspects of communication. These faults caused injustice to Y and Mr X. However, the Council has already provided a suitable remedy in line with Ombudsman guidance, and so I do not recommend any further action.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide a suitable school placement and appropriate education for his son, Y, after the family moved into the Council’s area in March 2024. Mr X says the Council did not secure a school place, did not provide full-time or suitable alternative provision, and failed to finalise Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). He also complains about delays, poor communication, and the Council’s failure to respond properly to his complaints. Mr X says these failures have disrupted Y’s education during his GCSE years and caused significant distress to the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(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)
5. 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

6. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in early April 2025. After that, the Council provided a detailed response through pre-action correspondence in April and May 2025. The correspondence addressed the issues raised, offered explanations, and included a financial remedy of £5,900, which Mr X accepted. I consider this correspondence to be analogous to a Stage 2 complaint response. My investigation therefore considers events only up to and including the Council’s PAP response in April/May 2025. I have not considered anything that happened after the PAP response, including the final EHCP, later consultations, later provision, or the placement ultimately secured.
7. Mr X also asked the Council to reimburse the legal fees he incurred in preparing a pre-action protocol letter. The Ombudsman cannot investigate or recommend reimbursement of private legal costs. Issues about legal fees fall within the jurisdiction of the courts, not the Ombudsman, and so I have not investigated this matter.

Back to top

Relevant guidance and legislation

Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs)

8. When a child with an EHCP moves into a new local authority area, the new authority becomes responsible for maintaining the plan from the date of transfer.
9. The new authority must confirm to the parent that it has taken over responsibility and take steps to review the plan and consider whether amendments are needed.

Amending an EHCP

10. When an authority proposes to amend an EHCP, it must issue the existing plan together with a notice of proposed amendments and allow at least 15 days for representations.
11. If it decides to amend the plan, it must issue the final amended EHCP as soon as practicable and within a maximum of eight weeks of sending the draft.
12. Councils must issue a final plan before a parent can exercise a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Special educational provision: Section 42 duty

13. A council must secure all the special educational provision set out in Section F of an EHCP. This is an absolute and non-delegable duty.

Education for children out of school

14. Councils must arrange suitable full-time education for children who are out of school “by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise”.
15. “Suitable education” means efficient education suitable to the child’s age, ability, aptitude and special educational needs. The Ombudsman’s guidance says councils should arrange provision without delay, and it should normally be full-time, unless a child’s needs prevent that.

Complaint handling

16. Councils must have clear processes for receiving, acknowledging and responding to complaints. They should address concerns within a reasonable timeframe and ensure correspondence raising concerns is treated appropriately. Failure to respond or to escalate matters can amount to poor administrative practice.

Back to top

What happened

17. Before moving into the Council’s area, Y, who has diagnoses of autism and ADHD, attended a small special school in another authority and had an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).
18. In the weeks before the family moved, the Council consulted several potential schools (Schools A–E) about whether they could offer Y a place. All declined, or in one case initially indicated interest before withdrawing after discussions with Mr X.
19. The family moved into the Council’s area in mid-March 2024. Around that time, the Council received Y’s EHCP from the previous authority and wrote to Mr X confirming it had taken over responsibility for the plan.
20. After the move, Y did not attend any school and no alternative provision was arranged. The Council acknowledges that no education was provided during the remainder of that academic year.
21. In early April 2024, an annual review of Y’s EHCP took place at his previous provider, with a Council officer attending. During the summer, the Council drafted amendments and issued a draft EHCP in mid-August.
22. Throughout 2024, the Council made further enquiries with schools and alternative provision providers. These included repeated alternative provision searches, wider independent school searches, and approaches to Schools B, C and D. None led to a confirmed placement.
23. From the start of the autumn term 2024, the Council arranged around 10–11 hours per week of online tuition for Y in core subjects. Mr X says this was disrupted at points because renewals were not arranged in time, and that Y struggled to engage with remote sessions given his profile of need.
24. During late 2024 and early 2025, Mr X repeatedly raised concerns with Council officers and senior managers about the lack of a school place, the limited tuition, and delays in updating the EHCP. He says some communications did not receive timely responses or did not resolve the issues raised.
25. In early April 2025, Mr X’s solicitors sent the Council a letter before claim for judicial review. The letter alleged failures to secure the special educational provision in Y’s EHCP, failure to provide suitable education while Y was out of school, delay in issuing a final EHCP, and failure to arrange attendance at another suitable school.
26. In its response later that month, the Council accepted there had been delay in securing a school setting and issued an apology. It said it would re-consult School A (the parental preference) and other providers, and would seek to improve Y’s interim provision.
27. The Council also offered a financial remedy totalling £5,900 to recognise periods when no or reduced provision had been in place, and to address distress and time spent by the family. Mr X accepted this payment.
28. Mr X’s solicitors asked the Council to resume the disrupted tuition immediately, arrange some in-person tuition, provide copies of all placement consultations, and meet urgently to discuss Y’s education.
29. In mid-May 2025, the Council confirmed payment of the remedy and said it had arranged a meeting, to coincide with an annual review, at the end of that month. It said it had agreed to extend Y’s alternative provision to up to 15 hours per week and to fund his exam fees.
30. Following the late-May annual review, the Council decided to amend the EHCP and continued consulting potential providers. During the summer of 2025, School A indicated it could offer a bespoke package for Y. A panel later agreed this, and towards the end of September 2025 the Council issued a final EHCP naming School A with a bespoke off-site and on-site arrangement.

Response to my enquiries

31. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to the Council. In response, the Council explained:
• It recognised there had been delay in progressing amendments to Y’s EHCP and confirmed this contributed to the later issue of the final plan.
• It acknowledged Y had received no education immediately after the family’s move and said this period had been reflected in the financial remedy offered.
• It accepted the online tuition did not amount to full-time education and that renewal delays had caused gaps in provision.
• It stated it had undertaken a series of school and provider consultations, including further approaches to School A, but that no suitable place had been available until School A later proposed a bespoke arrangement.
• It confirmed it had agreed to increase online tuition to up to 15 hours per week and to fund Y’s exam fees, and that further alternative provision options were being explored at that stage.
• It said the annual review arranged towards the end of May 2025 was intended to support the updated consultation process and inform its amendments to the EHCP.
• It confirmed it had paid a financial remedy of £5,900 for missed and reduced provision, distress, and time and trouble. It declined to reimburse the legal fees associated with the pre-action correspondence.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

32. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
33. Mr X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

EHCP transfer and delay in review

34. When Y moved into the Council’s area, the Council became responsible for maintaining his Education, Health and Care Plan. It also needed to review the plan and decide what amendments were required following the family’s move.
35. The Council confirmed when it received the plan and said it notified Mr X that responsibility had transferred. It issued draft amendments later in the summer. The Council accepted there were delays in progressing the amendments to the plan but did not explain why the process extended over several months.
36. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied the Council did not progress the review and amendment process in a timely or efficient way. This caused avoidable delay. The delay created uncertainty about Y’s needs and provision and meant Mr X was unable to access his right of appeal during this period. This was an injustice.

Special educational provision (Section 42 duty)

37. From the date the plan transferred, the Council had an absolute duty to secure the special educational provision set out in Section F of the EHCP.
38. The Council accepted that Y received no education for a period after the family moved. It also accepted that provision from the following term was reduced and limited, and that there were interruptions while arrangements were renewed. The Council did not state that this provision fully reflected Section F, and its correspondence acknowledged that the online tuition was limited and not suitable in the longer term.
39. I am satisfied the Council did not secure the special educational provision in Y’s plan. This was fault. The lack and reduction of provision caused Y loss of education and caused Mr X distress and time and trouble in trying to secure support.

Education out of school (Section 19 duty)

40. Councils must arrange suitable full-time education for children who are out of school because no placement is available.
41. The Council acknowledged there was no provision for one term. It also confirmed that from the next term, Y received part-time online tuition in three subjects. This did not amount to full-time education, and there were periods when tuition was disrupted due to renewal delays. The Council did not suggest that the education provided met the standard of “suitable full-time education” for a child out of school.
42. On balance, I am satisfied the Council did not meet its Section 19 duty. This was fault and caused Y academic loss and contributed to him being without consistent education during his GCSE years.

Delay in securing a school placement

43. The Council must consult suitable providers and then name a placement, or type of placement, in Section I of the EHCP.
44. The Council said it had consulted a number of specialist and independent providers, including School A. It explained that some providers declined due to capacity or suitability. It also explained that an indication of interest from one provider was later withdrawn. The Council recognised that the situation remained unresolved and that alternative provision was limited.
45. The Council did not accept there was fault in the consultation process, but despite repeated consultations over many months, no placement was identified or named during the period I am considering. The draft EHCP remained unfinalised, which prevented Mr X from appealing to the Tribunal. On balance, I consider there was avoidable delay in progressing placement arrangements and in issuing a plan that would have allowed Mr X to challenge decisions. This caused uncertainty and contributed to the overall period without suitable education.

Communication and complaint handling

46. Councils must respond to correspondence and must handle complaints through their formal procedure.
47. Mr X’s correspondence shows there were periods when he struggled to obtain updates. The Council’s enquiry response contained mixed information about the stage of the complaint procedure; it had earlier indicated the process was incomplete but later described it as concluded. Its response to our enquiries came via legal correspondence rather than the complaints team.
48. The Council did not expressly accept fault in its complaint handling. However, on balance, the evidence shows it did not provide clear communication about the progress of the complaint and did not consistently treat Mr X’s correspondence as formal complaints. This caused avoidable confusion and time and trouble.

Remedy

49. As set out earlier, my investigation considers events up to the Council’s pre-action protocol response. In that correspondence, the Council acknowledged delays and gaps in provision and offered a financial remedy of £5,900, which Mr X accepted. The payment covered periods of no education and reduced education up to spring 2025, and included amounts for distress and the time and trouble involved in pursuing matters.
50. The amounts offered were in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance for missed and reduced educational provision. The Council has since taken steps outside the period of my investigation to progress Y’s plan, including issuing a final EHCP and identifying a bespoke placement.
51. I am satisfied the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for the injustice that occurred during the period within my jurisdiction. There is no remaining unremedied injustice for that period. The faults identified in this case reflect delay and weaknesses in the handling of Y’s circumstances, but I have not seen evidence of a wider systemic issue in the Council’s SEN processes that would require a service improvement recommendation. In the context of the remedy already provided and the steps the Council has taken since the PAP response to progress Y’s education, I do not recommend any further action.

Back to top

Decision

52. The Council was at fault in the way it handled the transfer and review of Y’s EHCP, the provision of SEN support, education while out of school, and aspects of communication. These faults caused injustice to Y and Mr X. However, the Council has already provided a suitable remedy in line with Ombudsman guidance, and so I do not recommend any further action.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman