Summary: Mrs X complained how the Council handled her daughter’s personal budget. She also says the Council delayed finalising her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan, it failed to respond to her request for a sensory assessment and its complaints handling was flawed. We find the Council was at fault for how it handled Mrs X’s daughter’s personal budget and for its delay in finalising the Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for its complaints handling and its communication. These faults caused Mrs X’s upset and frustration. Mrs X’s daughter missed out on special educational provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and her daughter, make payments and implement a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained how the Council handled her daughter's, Miss Y, personal budget. She says the Council failed to provide the funding for all the provision in Miss Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, it failed to finalise section J of Miss Y’s EHC Plan, and it failed to provide clarity about what provision could be funded by direct payments. She also says the Council delayed reimbursing the money she paid for Miss Y’s provision, it failed to agree a reimbursement schedule, and it breached the regulations and its policy by operating a reimbursement scheme.
2. Mrs X adds the Council delayed finalising Miss Y’s EHC Plan, and it failed to respond to her request for a sensory assessment. Finally, she says the Council’s complaint responses were full of mistruths and untrue allegations.
3. Mrs X says the matter has caused distress and upset and she had to fund Miss Y’s provision. She says Miss Y has not received the provision she is legally entitled to.

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. 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)
5. 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)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Special educational needs

10. A child or young person up to the age of 25 with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out their needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. Section J details the personal budget required to fund the provision in the EHC Plan.

Personal budgets

11. A personal budget is the amount of money the council has identified it needs to pay to secure the provision in a child or young person’s EHC Plan. One way that councils can deliver a personal budget is through direct payments. These are cash payments made to the child’s parent or the young person so they can commission the provision in the EHC Plan themselves.
12. The final allocation of a personal budget must be sufficient to secure the agreed provision specified in the EHC Plan and must be set out as part of that provision.
13. Councils cannot fund a school place or post-16 institution by direct payments.

The Council’s personal budget policy

14. This policy says school or college places cannot be funded via a personal budget direct debit payment.
15. Personal budgets taken as a direct payment are paid by bank transfer termly in advance. The nominated holder is then responsible for making payments to pay for the support on behalf of the child/young person termly in advance.

Reviewing EHC Plans

16. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews.
17. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.

What happened

18. This chronology includes an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
19. Miss Y is a young person with special educational needs and an EHC Plan.
20. The Council issued an amended EHC Plan for Miss Y in April 2024. Section F of this Plan details occupational therapy (OT), speech and language therapy (SALT) and academic mentoring. The Council funded an autism mentor for Miss Y via a personal budget and direct payments. The Council named an educational setting (Provider A) in section I of the Plan.
21. The Council held an annual review of Miss Y’s EHC Plan in early June. Mrs X provided the Council with a proposal for Miss Y’s educational provision. This said Miss Y would continue to receive some provision at Provider A. However, she would also attend short courses at other educational settings. These would be managed by a personal budget.
22. Miss Y’s occupational therapist provided a report for the annual review. She said Miss Y needed a new assessment undertaken by an occupational therapist working with adults. She said children’s OT support services were no longer appropriate for Miss Y’s needs and she was not engaging.
23. Provider A provided the Council with the annual review paperwork. In the funding form it said it could no longer commit to providing OT. It also said if Miss Y was to reengage with OT, it would need to be an independent OT that would work alongside its staff.
24. The Council issued Miss Y’s draft amended EHC Plan at the end of July.
25. Miss Y’s father (Mr X) responded to the Council. He asked whether Miss Y’s short courses would be funded by the personal budget, as well as OT and SALT. The Council agreed to investigate the matter further.
26. The Council exchanged further emails with Mr and Mrs X about Miss Y’s EHC Plan and the personal budget. Mrs X said she had already paid for Miss Y to access a course from September. She asked the Council to reimburse her. She also said Provider A was not continuing to handle Miss Y’s OT and SALT.
27. The Council responded and told Mrs X to enrol Miss Y on the short courses she wanted to do. It said it would arrange for the courses to be set up by finance, so it could pay the settings directly in the future. It said it would consider adding OT and SALT into the personal budget.
28. Mrs X provided the Council with costings for a new occupational therapist for Miss Y in mid-August.
29. The Council provided Mr and Mrs X with Miss Y’s amended EHC Plan in mid-September. It said it was looking at their amendments for the personal budget agreement, and it would finalise them before issuing the final EHC Plan. Mrs X responded and asked some questions about the personal budget. She also said she had funded some of Miss Y’s provision herself.
30. The Council paid Mrs X monies for the personal budget for the autumn term in September. Mrs X emailed the Council in late September and said she had received the money. However, she was unsure if it was for the autism mentoring or the rest of the personal budget. She also asked what period the funding was for. The Council responded and said it was Miss Y’s current personal budget amount. Any changes to future agreements would be reflected in the spring term payment.
31. The Council emailed Mrs X and explained it would send funding for the short courses directly to the educational settings. The settings would then need to reimburse Mrs X the monies she had paid.
32. The Council sent Mrs X an amended personal budget agreement in early November. Mrs X responded and said the agreement did not reflect Miss Y’s EHC Plan. She said Miss Y’s EHC Plan said Miss Y should receive autism mentoring for five hours every day. However, the agreement only funded 10 hours per week. She said the agreement did not refer to all of Miss Y’s OT. She also said a senior occupational therapist needed to develop an appropriate support package for Miss Y. She asked the Council to approve funding for the upcoming courses. Finally, she said Miss Y was previously receiving one hour per week of academic mentoring from Provider A. She asked the Council to include it in the personal budget.
33. Mrs X contacted the Council just over a week later. She said she had received no personal budget monies for the term apart from a partial payment for Miss Y’s autism mentoring. She said she still had not received payments for Miss Y’s short courses. She asked it to transfer the funds for the next term within the next five days.
34. Mrs X emailed the Council at the end of November and provided it with a letter from an occupational therapist asking for funding to complete a sensory assessment for Miss Y.
35. The Council updated Mrs X in mid-December. It said its panel was still dealing with her amendments to the personal budget. It also said it was looking for another quote from a different provider for the OT and SALT.
36. The Council reimbursed Mrs X some monies she paid for Miss Y’s short courses a few days later.
37. Mrs X complained to the Council in January 2025 about the funding issues in Miss Y’s EHC Plan. She said Miss Y was progressing with some of the OT in the Plan, but she needed to agree with the therapist how best to progress. This was proving difficult because of the funding issues. She also asked for a meeting to resolve the issues.
38. The Council responded to the complaint at the end of January. It said it had not received a report stating Miss Y needed a senior occupational therapist (at £200 per hour). It said it was seeking alternative quotes based on Miss Y’s OT provision in her EHC Plan. It apologised for the delay in communicating this to her. It said it would provide the agreed lower rate (£120 per hour) for Miss Y’s provision until it clarified the rate. It also said it had contacted her to get details of the autism mentor support but had not received a response. Once it had the details about how much mentoring Miss Y was receiving, and when this increased, it would then release the funds.
39. Mrs X referred her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. She said it had failed to finalise Miss Y’s EHC Plan and personal budget. She said she had not received the monies for the sensory assessment, and it had failed to provide funds for Miss Y’s provision before each term. She also said it had never mentioned the requirement for another report for Miss Y’s OT provision, and Miss Y had always used a senior therapist. Finally, she said the Council was aware of Miss Y’s autism mentor provider, and she had not asked for mentoring support above what was in Miss Y’s EHC Plan.
40. The Council held a meeting with Mrs X a couple of days later to discuss the issues. It said the personal budget could not fund tuition fees. So, while it agreed to pay the fees, it would be through direct payments when Mrs X had provided the receipts. Mrs X asked the Council to provide a schedule, so the payments were more manageable. She said she had received random amounts at random times. The Council said it would discuss the matter with management. It also said it would issue Miss Y’s final amended EHC Plan as soon as possible.
41. The Council issued Miss Y’s final amended EHC Plan in mid-February. It also asked for the invoices for the autism mentor. It said it would then adjust the personal budget.
42. Mrs X responded and asked further questions about the personal budget. She agreed to send the mentor invoices the following week. She also said the Council had wrongly referred to an autism mentor in section J of the EHC Plan, and not the academic mentor.
43. The Council issued its final response to the complaint in early March. It apologised for the delay in issuing Miss Y’s EHC Plan and offered £500 for the inconvenience and distress caused.
44. The Council also said Mrs X did not request OT for the personal budget until November 2024. Provider A had agreed to provide Miss Y with OT. The agreement was that as soon as Miss Y could engage, it would provide Provider A with the OT funds. However, this did not happen as Mrs X did not engage with the process. It said it was continuing to look for quotes from alternative OT providers. It also said it had not received a professional report explaining why a sensory assessment was required.
45. Finally, the Council said it could only make direct payments for the special educational provision in an EHC Plan. It could not make direct payments for the purpose of funding a school place or a post-16 institution. Therefore, Mrs X would need to pay the settings directly for Miss Y’s short courses, and then it would reimburse the fees.
46. The Council emailed Mrs X in early April and provided the personal budget agreement. It said this included the full allocation for Miss Y’s autism mentoring support and the increased rate for the OT support.
47. The Council received a quote of £130 per hour for Miss Y’s OT provision. Mrs X contacted the Council and explained its proposed OT provider only offered clinic sessions, whereas Miss Y would only access OT at home. The Council agreed to look into the matter further.
48. The Council processed further direct payments funding for Miss Y in mid-May to cover the autumn, spring and summer terms. This covered OT, autism mentoring and academic mentoring. The Council backdated these payments. Mrs X received this in June.

Back to top

Analysis

Personal budget

49. During the annual review in June 2024, Mrs X said she wanted Miss Y’s educational provision to be funded partly through Provider A, and partly through a personal budget. When Provider A sent its funding form to the Council, it did not include OT, SALT and academic mentoring. The Council was not removing this provision from Miss Y’s EHC Plan, and it agreed it needed to continue.
50. The Council does not have to agree to a personal budget request. However, if it does not agree, it should put its reasons in writing and give the parent the right to request a review. The Council did not do this and so on the balance of probabilities I conclude it agreed or intended to agree to the request. However, it was unclear about which of Miss Y’s provision should be in the personal budget.
51. The provision it then included in the personal budget was not always in line with Miss Y’s EHC Plan. This took a long time to resolve, which is fault. The Council did approve the further payments for the autumn, spring and summer terms until mid-May 2025. Mrs X received this in June 2025. This is not in line with its policy which says payments should be made in advance of each term. The Council provided a partial personal budget payment in September 2024, but it made this was without a full understanding about what provision was in the personal budget. This is fault.
52. The Council was at fault for how it handled Miss Y’s OT provision and its communication with Mrs X about this. Mrs X provided the Council with the increased OT costings in August 2024. The Council did not tell Mrs X the OT rate was too high until December 2024. This is a significant delay and is fault.
53. The Council also took several months to propose an alternative OT provider. This is fault.
54. The Council’s direct payments policy says it should pay the personal budget in advance of each term. It does not state the parents should pay, and the Council should then reimburse the monies paid. However, in this case, Mrs X had to fund Miss Y’s short courses and then wait for reimbursement.
55. The Council told Mrs X in February 2025 that short courses could not be funded by direct payments. The special educational needs regulations 2014, and the Council’s policy, state direct payments cannot be made for the purpose of funding a place at a post-16 institution. However, the Council was at fault for the significant length of time it took to clarify this with Mrs X, especially given she had asked for direct payments for the short courses in the June 2024 annual review.
56. Finally, Mrs X says the Council has failed to finalise section J of Miss Y’s EHC Plan. The Council sent several versions of Miss Y’s EHC Plan in 2024/2025. Each time, Mrs X raised concerns about what had been included in section J. The Council issued Miss Y’s final EHC Plan with section J in February 2025. Mrs X says this is incomplete because of the OT rates and it wrongly refers to an autism rather than an academic mentor.
57. I have checked the Council’s personal budget agreement and cross referenced it with section J of Miss Y’s EHC Plan. The personal budget agreement refers to a specific amount of money for an academic mentor. Section J of the EHC Plan refers to the same amount of money for the autism mentor. The Council has wrongly referred to the autism mentor in the Section J of the EHC Plan, rather than the academic mentor. However, this has not caused a significant injustice as it has been clarified in the personal budget agreement. The Council accepted Miss Y needed an academic mentor despite it not being in Section J as it made a payment for this in mid-May 2025.
58. The OT issue was still ongoing at the end point of my investigation (May 2025), with the Council agreeing to look into Mrs X’s concerns about its suggested OT provider. The events in this case have now significantly moved on, with the Council holding another annual review in 2025 and agreeing to fund the senior rate for the next academic year.

Delays in reimbursement

59. Mrs X paid Miss Y’s short courses for the autumn term in July 2024, October 2024 and November 2024. The Council did not reimburse Mrs X for most of these courses until mid-December 2024. This delay is fault. Mrs X constantly chased during this time for reimbursement of the monies she had paid.
60. During the spring term the Council took several weeks to reimburse Mrs X the monies she had paid. These further delays are fault.

Failure to agree a reimbursement schedule

61. Mrs X asked the Council to consider a reimbursement schedule. She asked for this because she had received different money at different times, without a clear indication of what it was for and how long the Council would take to reimburse her. This was not an unreasonable request, especially as Mrs X was paying for Miss Y’s short courses. The Council said it would discuss her request with management. There is no evidence it did so. This is fault.

Delay in finalising the EHC Plan

62. The Council should have issued Miss Y’s final EHC Plan by 27 August 2024. It did not issue it until 13 February 2025. This is a significant delay and is fault.

Sensory assessment

63. Mrs X provided the Council with a letter in November 2024 from Miss Y’s occupational therapist asking for a sensory assessment. The therapist set out why the assessment was needed, and she also asked if any further information was needed to consider the request. The Council did not respond to the request until its stage two complaint response in February 2025. This delay is fault.
64. The Council said in its complaints response that Mrs X had not provided a professional report advising why a sensory assessment was necessary. However, Mrs X had provided the Council with a letter from the therapist which details the reason for the assessment. The Council did not say why this letter was insufficient or explain what further information it needed to consider this request further. This is fault.
65. I understand the Council has now (after the end point of my investigation in May 2025) agreed to fund the sensory assessment.

Complaints handling

66. Mrs X says the Council’s complaint response was full of mistruths and untrue allegations.
67. The Council said in its stage two complaint response that Mrs X did not ask for OT in the personal budget until November 2024. It also said Provider A had agreed to provide OT when Miss Y could access it, but Mrs X had refused to engage with this process. This is incorrect. Mrs X provided the Council with OT costings in August 2024, and she made it clear she wanted it to include the provision in the personal budget. The Council said, in response, it would consider adding OT to the personal budget. Provider A made it clear it could not continue providing OT, and further provision would have to be from an independent OT. Mrs X repeatedly raised the OT issue with the Council, and it is not true she did not engage.
68. As stated in paragraph 64 above the Council also said it had not received a professional report advising why a sensory assessment was necessary. This is incorrect. Mrs X provided this information at the end of November 2024.
69. We expect councils to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. This includes fully reviewing the file before responding to a complaint. The Council’s failure to do so is fault.

Injustice and remedy

70. The Council’s faults outlined in this statement have caused significant Mrs X frustration and distress. She went to significant time and inconvenience communicating with the Council to try and resolve the issues. There were also financial implications because she paid for Miss Y’s provision and then had to wait a long time for reimbursement, without an indication of when the Council would pay the monies. The faults in the Council’s complaints handling have compounded this injustice.
71. Mrs X says the Council’s faults means Miss Y has missed out on provision. She says Miss Y missed out on OT, SALT and academic mentoring. Mrs X wants a payment for the missed provision. She says Miss Y’s EHC Plan ends in June 2026, and there is not enough time for her catch up on the provision. A payment would enable this to happen when her EHC Plan ends.
72. But for the Council’s fault, it would have finalised Miss Y’s EHC Plan in late August 2024, before the new academic term. This should have included a finalised personal budget in section J. It would have paid Mrs X the personal budget monies before each new term in line with its policy. This did not happen, apart from a partial payment in September 2024. This payment covered partial autism mentoring only. It did not cover the other provision in Miss Y’s EHC Plan. The Council did not resolve this until May 2025 when it paid the personal budget monies for September 2024 to June 2025. Mrs X received this payment in June 2025. This was not enough time for Miss Y to access nearly a whole academic year of provision before the term ended. Miss Y will have to return this unspent money to the Council when her EHC Plan ends.
73. Therefore, the Council’s fault caused Miss Y a significant injustice as she missed out on the provision she is legally entitled to. Mrs X paid for Miss Y to access some provision, such as OT, while she was waiting for the Council to resolve the funding issues. However, the OT provision started near the end of the Autumn term. Miss Y did not access academic mentoring or SALT. Her access to the short courses at the start of the academic year was also disrupted. Miss Y has complex needs, and it was an important year for her as she comes towards the end of her EHC Plan. The Council needs to remedy this injustice.
74. Given Miss Y’s needs, she may need to transition to adult social care when her EHC Plan ends in June 2026. The Council should therefore provide a copy of this decision to that department. Staff from that department can consider the impact of the missed provision on Miss Y if it completes an assessment of her needs.
75. The Council offered £500 for the injustice caused by the delay in dealing with Miss Y’s EHC Plan. This is not sufficient to remedy the injustice caused by fault in this statement. I make more suitable recommendations.

Back to top

Action

76. By 14 May 2026 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Miss Y and Mrs X for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Consider Mrs X’s request for a reimbursement schedule to deal with Miss Y’s short courses. It should write to Mrs X with its decision.
• Share this decision with its adult social care department.

77. By 11 June 2026 the Council has agreed to:

• Pay Mrs X £250 for her frustration, distress and inconvenience.
• Pay Miss Y £5,400 to reflect her missed special educational provision from September 2024 to June 2025.
• Review arrangements for making direct payments for personal budgets to ensure individuals receive them in a timely manner and in advance of each term. This should include details of what the payment is for.

78. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

79. There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss Y and Mrs X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman