Summary: Mrs Y complained about the Council’s delivery of her child, Z’s special educational provision. We have found fault by the Council, causing injustice in failing to: deliver the provision in Z’s EHC Plan; and offer a social care assessment as it had previously agreed to do. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by: apologising; making payments to recognise the impact of the missed education and upset; and offering a social care assessment.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the Council’s delivery of her child, Z’s special educational needs (SEN) provision from the start of the school year in September 2024, and other related issues. She says the Council:
1. failed to provide Z with the SEN provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan issued in April 2024. This said Z would be provided with up to 15 hours a week of english and maths tuition. But they were only provided with 6-8 hours mentoring a week and received no academic tuition;
2. failed to offer her and Z a social care assessment as it agreed to do in response to our decision in August 2024 on her previous complaint;
3. failed to pay her agreed redress of £1,000 a month for the continued support she provided for Z from September 2024; and
4. misled her and Z about the offer of a school place at School A.
2. Mrs Y says the failure to provide all Z’s educational support had a severe impact on their learning and opportunity to take their GSCEs. Being wrongly led to believe they would be starting at School A caused Z a lot of distress. The failure to offer them both a social care assessment caused them to miss out on the opportunity of additional support.
3. Mrs Y wants the Council to put in place all of Z’s SEN provision and ensure they have the support and academic tuition they need to sit their GCSEs. She also wants the Council to offer them social care assessments.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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. 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)
7. 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

8. I have investigated what happened in the period following our previous decision in August 2024, until April 2025, when Mrs Y brought her complaint to us.
9. I have considered the ongoing impact of any fault in the delivery of Z’s SEN provision up until June 2025, when the new amended EHC Plan was issued.
10. I have not considered any complaint about events after April 2025. These are new issues and would have to be raised first with the Council as a separate complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

EHC Plan and special educational provision

13. 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. 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 Tribunal or the council can do this. 
14. 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). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable.

What happened

15. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

Background

16. Z had had an EHC Plan for a number of years. Section of Z’s final amended Plan issued in April 2024 said Z would:

• access education via an Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) package, which included an alternative provision agreement; and
• be provided with up to 15 hours a week of english and maths tuition.

17. It also included the following provision for Speech and Language Therapy (SALT):

• programmes would be provided and monitored by the Speech and Language Therapist to develop speech and language skills and delivered by teachers or teaching assistants as appropriate……This provision would continue until such time as Z was discharged by the Speech and Language Therapist; and
• the provision would be embedded into Z’s curriculum.

18. Mrs Y was unhappy about some parts of the Plan. She appealed to the SEND Tribunal and asked for an addition to section I to include a plan for Z’s transition back to mainstream school – School A.

Mrs Y’s previous complaint to us

19. Mrs Y brought a complaint to us about other issues concerning the way the Council had dealt with Z’s educational provision.
20. We issued our final decision on this previous complaint in August 2024. This included a finding the Council had failed to deliver all the provision in Z’s April 2024 Plan for the school year ending July 2024. The Council agreed to take actions to remedy the injustice, including:

• a payment to recognise the impact on Z of missed education in the school year 2023/2024;
• a payment of £1,000 to Mrs Y to recognise the impact on her of Z not receiving suitable education, the time and trouble this had caused her and uncertainty regarding a social care assessment; and
• offering Mrs Y and Z a social care assessment.

July to August 2024: contact about Z’s provision and School A

21. In July, the Council sent a consultation to School A on a place for Z from September 2024. School A indicated, in its response, it would not be able to meet Z’s needs.
22. In August, the Council told Mrs Y about School A’s response. It said it would go back to the school in September to discuss this further and any adjustments which could be made to support Z at school. The Council also said:

• it had delayed making the request for Z’s alternative provision to the Panel until it had received School A’s consultation response; and
• as this had been received, it would now make a request for 10 hours of mentoring at an alternative provision setting (B) and 15 hours of tuition for Z at the next Panel meeting on 2 September.

23. The Council contacted School A again on 30 August. It wanted to discuss additional provision to support Z’s placement at the school and said both the Council and Mrs Y were keen to work with the school to explore the options.
24. The Council paid Mrs Y the total amount set out in our August 2024 final decision, including the sum of £1,000 for the impact of its faults on her.

September 2024: contact about a social care assessment

25. Mrs Y told the Council she was unhappy about the contact with a manager about a carers assessment. She said they had only asked whether she needed help with parenting. This was not what was agreed in the ombudsman’s decision.
26. The Council replied that it was sorry it had not been a positive conversation. It said it had been asked by the ombudsman to offer her a social care assessment which is why the manager had called her.

September to December 2024: further contact about provision and School A

27. The Council spoke to Mrs Y on 6 September and confirmed they had agreed the Council would:

• check with Setting B it still had a place for Z (for alternative provision);
• continue discussions with School A;
• liaise with its Specialist Teachers team to arrange a learning assessment; and
• explore financial compensation for Z’s home learning. Mrs Y had told the Council she would provide Z with 15 hours a week of mentoring and education, if it paid her for this.

28. The Council sent a further consultation to School A on 11 September. But the school again said it could not offer Z a place as it could not meet their needs without disrupting other children’s education.
29. The Council had further discussions with the school about its response. The school maintained its position that it could not and would not offer Z a place.
30. On 15 October the Council sent School A its response to the school’s consultation. It said it intended to name the school on Z’s EHC Plan in accordance with parental preference with a start date of 4 November.
31. The Council told Mrs Y on 15 October it had agreed:

• to name School A on Z’s EHC Plan. It had notified the school of its intention to do this and asked it to prepare Z to start full-time from 4 November and facilitate visits from 21 October to help them settle in;
• 10 hours a week of alternative provision for Z with Setting B; and
• a personal budget request to fund additional resources for Z, in addition to the previously agreed £1,000 compensation for her time. These payments were now being processed. The Council has provided an invoice dated 25 September 2024 for a payment of £1,000 to support Z’s education.

32. On 21 October Mrs Y told the Council School A had refused to speak to her about Z’s visits. The Council said it would check with the school.
33. On 4 November School A told the Council it was unable to cater for Z’s needs and was not willing for Z to start with it
34. On 30 December Mrs Y told the Council she would let it know if she heard anything from the school in January about a place but was not hopeful. She said she was disappointed at the way the school had dealt with her. But she confirmed Z’s alternative provision with Setting B was going well.

January 2025: Panel meeting to discuss Z’s placement

35. The Panel discussed whether School A should be named as Z’s placement. It noted the school was adamant it was not the right setting for Z and its continued refusal to offer Z a place.
36. The Panel recommended Z needed alternative provision in place to re-engage with education.

Mrs Y’s complaint to the Council

37. In February 2025 Mrs Y complained:

• Z was still only receiving six hours of alternative provision a week;
• Z was not being provided with any academic tuition or SALT; and
• the Council had agreed to pay her £1,000 a month for her support for Z while the full provision in the EHC Plan was not being delivered. She asked for payment for the four months from November 2024 to February 2025.

38. In its response of March 2025, the Council said:

• Z was currently receiving 10 hours a week of alternative provision with Setting B;
• there had been discussions about Z starting at School A alongside the delivery of alternative provision, but the school had not offered Z a place; and
• they were now focusing on Z’s alternative provision. A request to increase this to 15 hours a week would be considered by the panel.

39. Mrs Y was not satisfied with the Council’s response and brought her complaint to us in April 2025.

Events from April 2025

40. An annual review meeting was held on 5 June 2025. It was confirmed Z was now receiving between 9-11 hours a week of alternative provision with Setting B.
41. A final amended EHC Plan was issued on 5 June 2025, following the conclusion of the Tribunal proceedings. This said, in section F:

• Z would receive 15 hours per week of mentoring; and
• Z would initially receive 1 hour of maths tuition and 1 hour of english tuition per week from a qualified teacher. This would gradually be built up to a tuition package of 9 hours per week at a pace dictated by Z’s ability to engage and make progress, to be determined in consultation with Z, their parents, tutor and mentor.

42. On 6 June 2025 the Council contacted Mrs Y about the new final amended EHC Plan. It also told her:

• the Panel had not agreed to a further £1,000 payment. It had noted this was agreed and paid for the Autumn term, as a one-off payment whilst Z’s EOTAS package was being put in place and discussions were ongoing with School A; and
• it recognised she had asked it to re-consider because Z was still not receiving full-time support. Its complaints team would look into this.

43. In July 2025 the Council told Mrs Y:

• the Panel had agreed Z’s alternative provision with Setting B of 15 hours a week and academic tuition with Provider C of 10 hours a week until the end of July 2026. Z now had a full-time package of support in place for the next academic year; and
• it would complete an annual review in the autumn term to look at booking exams, if Z was ready for this.

My decision - was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

Complaint (a) failure to provide Z’s special educational needs provision

44. The Council had a duty to provide Z with all the SEN provision in their EHC Plan from the start of the school year in September 2024. This provision included up to 15 hours of english and maths tuition a week.
45. The Council did not deliver Z’s provision. I appreciate the Council says its focus, at the start of the school year 2024/2025 was on securing a place for Z at School A. But this does not negate its duty to deliver the provision in Z’s Plan in the meantime.
46. Although later in the autumn term the Council put in place alternative provision (mentoring) for Z with Setting B, which continued and increased during the school year, it did not provide Z with any academic tuition during this period.
47. The SALT provision in Z’s Plan was to be delivered through a school setting. The Council had a duty to secure this provision for Z as far as was possible at home. The evidence I’ve seen indicates it tried, belatedly and unsuccessfully in June 2025, to find a provider able to deliver SALT outside of a school setting. I don’t think the position would have been different had it tried sooner.
48. But the Council’s failure to provide the maths and english tuition specified in Z’s April 2024 EHC Plan in the school year to June 2025 was fault.

Impact of this fault

49. Because of the Council’s failure, Z was not provided with any maths or english tuition in the school year from September 2024 to June 2025.
50. Our guidance on remedies for a loss of educational provision recommends a payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The exact figure should be based on the impact on the child, taking into account factors such as their special educational needs and any other educational provision made during the period.
51. I have taken into account that Mrs Y agreed with the Council she would provide Z with 15 hours a week of support during the autumn term (until alternative provision was put in place), And that Z was provided with 6 hours a week, increasing to 10 hours a week, of alternative provision with Setting B, after October 2024 until the end of the school year.
52. But Z missed out on the academic side of their education and the opportunity to start working toward their GCSEs. The payment I have recommended recognises the level of provision that was made, but that this did not include any academic learning and was not the fifteen hours agreed.
53. The fault also caused Mrs Y continued worry and upset about the Council’s failure to deliver all of Z's SEN provision.

Complaint (b) failure to offer Mrs Y and Z social care assessments

54. The Council said, in September 2024, it had asked a manager to contact Mrs Y to offer the social care assessments as it had agreed to do in August 2024. But there is no evidence the offer of assessments was properly made to Mrs Y. And although Mrs Y told the Council this was not what happened, there is nothing to show the Council followed this up.
55. I consider the Council’s failure to ensure Mrs Y and Z were offered assessments was fault. Because of this Mrs Y and Z have still not been given the opportunity to have social care assessments.
56. We cannot say whether they would have been entitled to support from social care. But Mrs Y has been caused uncertainty about whether support was lost, and frustration the Council has not carried out the agreed action.

Complaint (c) failure to pay Mrs Y £1,000 a month for Z’s support as agreed

57. My view, based on the information seen, is the Council agreed to pay Mrs Y £1,000 for the support she agreed to provide for Z during the autumn term 2024, until alternative provision was in place. It made this payment to Mrs Y in or about September/October 2024.
58. I have not seen any information showing the Council agreed to make any further payments to Mrs Y. Its email of 6 June 2025 confirmed this was a one-off payment.
59. I have not found fault by the Council on this part of Mrs Y’s complaint.

Complaint (d) Mrs Y and Z were misled about a place at School A

60. I understand Mrs Y and the Council all wanted Z to start at School A in the autumn term 2024, and that it was very upsetting for Mrs Y and Z that this did not happen as they had hoped. But I don’t consider the Council misled them about this.
61. The information I have seen shows the Council kept Mrs Y informed about the school’s response to its consultation and its continued refusal to offer Z a place. I think the uncertainty about Z being able to start at the school was clear from the school’s responses to both the Council and Mrs Y’s contact.
62. I have not found fault by the Council on this part of the complaint.

Service improvements

63. Over the last eighteen months the Council has implemented our recommended service improvements relating to the provision of educational provision, including those in our August 2024 decision.
64. In the circumstances I have not recommended any further service improvements at this stage.

Back to top

Action

65. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mrs Y, and separately to Z in a way that is suitable for their age and capacity, for its failure to; deliver the provision in Z’s EHC Plan; and offer then a social care assessment as it agreed to do in August 2024. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. pay Mrs Y, on Z’s behalf, £1,500 (based on missed provision over 2 terms). This is a remedy for Z’s benefit to recognise the injustice the missed education has caused them:
3. pay Mrs Y £350 to reflect the avoidable upset, worry and uncertainty caused by its failures. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies; and
4. offer Mrs Y and Z a social care assessment and confirm its offer in writing.
66. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

67. I have found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman