Summary: The Council was at fault for delay reviewing Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and for failing to provide the special educational provision in Y’s Plan. This meant Y missed out on education he should have had and caused Y’s mother, Miss X, frustration. The Council will apologise and make symbolic payments. It will also take steps to prevent similar fault in future.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the education the Council arranged for her child, Y, in his last year of compulsory education. Miss X also complained the Council decided Y should receive Education Otherwise Than at School in that year instead of going to a school. Miss X said this was against her wishes. After complaining to the Ombudsman, Miss X added that she was unhappy about what the Council had done in relation to Y’s post-16 education.
2. Miss X said the Council’s actions had a significant impact on Y’s wellbeing and development and that it caused her upset, stress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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)
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 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

9. Miss X previously made a complaint about Y’s education to the Ombudsman. That investigation covered a period ending in mid-November 2024, when the Council issued a new Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Y. My investigation begins from the date of that new EHC Plan.
10. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6). For that reason, the Ombudsman normally ends its investigations at the date a council issued its final complaint response. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply.
11. In this case the Council issued its final response in April 2025 and Y completed compulsory education in July 2025. It is logical to encompass the summer 2025 school term into this investigation so that it covers the remainder of Y’s compulsory education. Therefore, my investigation ends in July 2025.
12. I have not investigated Miss X’s concerns about Y’s post-16 education. That period occurred well after the Council’s April 2025 final response to her complaint, and it was reasonable for her to make a new complaint about that period. Miss X has since done so and has submitted a new complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy, guidance and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, which is published on our website.
14. Miss X 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

Relevant law and guidance

Education, Health and Care Plans

15. 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. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the SEND Tribunal or the council can do this.
16. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person; and
• Section J: Details of any personal budget required to fund the provision in the EHC Plan.

17. Section I of an EHC Plan sets out the school or educational placement the child or young person will attend, or the type of school or placement they will attend. Some children or young people receive Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS). This is an educational package normally made up of several different types of provision, all of which are delivered outside of a school or educational placement setting. In those cases, councils must leave section I blank and state the child will receive EOTAS in section F.

Personal budgets

18. 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.
19. A child’s parent or the young person has the right to request a personal budget when the council has completed an EHC needs assessment and confirmed it will prepare an EHC Plan. They may also request a personal budget during a statutory review of an existing EHC Plan.
20. If the council refuses a request for a direct payment, it must set out the reasons in writing and inform the child’s parent or the young person of their right to request a formal review of the decision.

Special educational provision

21. 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. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
22. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• Check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• Check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• Quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

Annual reviews

23. 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. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
24. 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.
25. For young people moving from secondary school to a post-16 institution or apprenticeship, the council must review and amend the EHC Plan by 31 March in the calendar year of the transfer.  
26. The SEND Tribunal hears appeals from parents and young people about the content of EHC Plans. A parent can, for example, appeal to the Tribunal to challenge a council’s decision their child should receive EOTAS.
27. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. The same restrictions apply where someone had a right of appeal to the Tribunal and it was reasonable for them to have used that right. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)

What happened

28. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.

EOTAS and the EHC Plan phase transfer review

29. In September 2024, Y began year 11. In mid-November 2024, the Council issued Y’s EHC Plan which stated he would receive EOTAS in section F. Miss X told the Council she disagreed with that decision, but she did not appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The EOTAS package the Council decided upon was for Y to receive:
• Nine hours of tuition per week, building to 12 hours each week; and
• One day per week at an outdoor education provider (provider A).
30. The Plan stated the other special educational provision Y needed included:
• Technology supports “if and when required”. The Plan noted examples of this could be use of a laptop, spell checkers or pens; and
• “Adaptations resources linked to his visual stress when needed”.
• More time to process information and to complete written work;
• Adults to provide low-key encouragement throughout lessons and to use non-verbal signals as part of positive feedback;
• Adults to help Y focus on work and to use repetition if needed;
• A trusted adult to teach Y strategies to manage his anger, understanding of his emotions and develop social problem-solving skills;
• Homework which was broken down to a level Y could understand; and
• Teaching of emotional literacy skills, healthy relationships and online safety.
31. The Council held Y’s phase transfer review meeting in early April 2025. It issued Y’s amended EHC Plan in mid-July 2025 and stated Y would attend a college-type placement in section I. Miss X did not appeal the Plan to the SEND Tribunal.

Findings- EOTAS

32. The Ombudsman cannot consider matters that have, or should have been, considered by a Tribunal. I have seen no good reason why Miss X did not appeal Y’s November 2024 EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal to challenge the Council’s decision that Y should receive EOTAS. Therefore, I cannot consider her complaint that the Council wrongly decided Y should have EOTAS. In any event, only the Council and the SEND Tribunal can make choices over the content of EHC Plans.

Findings- Phase transfer annual review

33. To comply with the deadline for Y’s phase transfer annual review, the Council needed to issue Y’s amended EHC Plan by 31 March 2025. The Council held the annual review meeting in April 2025, already after the deadline for Y’s amended EHC Plan. Ultimately, the Council issued Y’s Plan in mid-July 2025, almost four months late. This delay was fault and caused Miss X frustration but did not delay her appeal to the SEND Tribunal because she chose not to appeal the Plan.

Tuition- provider B

34. At the time the Council issued Y’s new EHC Plan in mid-November 2024, he received nine hours of tuition per week, over three days, from a provider (provider B). The sessions were delivered by two tutors, one of which did the teaching (tutor 1), the other was present for safety reasons (tutor 2). The tutors were paid for by Y’s previous school, but the Council later took over paying provider B directly.
35. In mid-November, Miss X asked the Council whether the tutors were using the correct syllabus. A few days later, the Council told Miss X the tutor who was teaching Y had received the syllabus from the school when they started working with him.
36. Tutor 1 asked the Council for a copy of Y’s EHC Plan at the end of their first week teaching Y since the Council had issued the new Plan. They noted the fact they had not seen the Plan meant they were not aware of Y’s learning difficulties, which meant they had not used the appropriate strategies when teaching him. The Council sent tutor 1 the EHC Plan ready for their next session with Y.
37. In late November, Y told the Council he was not ready to increase to 12 hours of provision per week yet.
38. At the end of November Miss X told the Council the tutors had recently spent far less than three hours with Y during a session. In early December, she added that Y had reported that tutor 2 was mean. The Council contacted provider B the same day and reminded it that tutors should stay for the full visit time and if that was not possible, they should record why not.
39. The next day, tutor 1 stopped being Y’s teacher. Tutor 2 continued on their own. In mid-December, the Council spoke with Miss X to discuss her concerns about Y’s tuition. It said it would consider them more fully at a meeting in early January 2025.
40. Miss X says that in mid-January 2025, tutor 2 made an inappropriate comment about Y. Miss X also says the education Y received from the tutor was inadequate. She told the Council and no more sessions occurred. Miss X told the Ombudsman Y never had the nine hours of tuition per week from provider B.
41. The Council ultimately held the meeting in late January 2025. Following that meeting, the Council decided to find a new tuition provider, even though it did not agree with Miss X’s concerns about Y’s tuition.

Findings

42. The Council failed to send tutor 1 a copy of Y’s November 2024 EHC Plan after it was issued. This was fault and meant the tutor began teaching Y without a copy of his Plan, setting out his learning needs and special educational provision. When the Council became aware of this, it sent tutor 1 the Plan promptly, which was appropriate. Nonetheless, they were without Y’s Plan for one week, which means Y likely did not receive the special educational provision in his Plan for that week. There is no evidence that tutor 2 was without Y’s EHC Plan when they took over teaching him in December 2024.
43. After Miss X asked whether provider B’s tutors were working towards the right syllabus, the Council confirmed Y’s previous school had given tutor 1 the syllabus when they began teaching him. Given this, on the balance of probabilities I am satisfied provider B was teaching Y according to the correct syllabus. The Council was not at fault.
44. The Council commissioned provider B to tutor Y for nine hours per week. Although Y's EHC Plan includes provision for his hours to increase to 12 per week, Y said he was not ready for that. The Council was not at fault for not commissioning 12 hours of tuition per week as it was responding to Y’s needs.
45. Miss X says the provider B never stayed the full nine hours per week with Y. When the Council heard one of Y’s sessions was short, it acted appropriately to contact provider B and reminded it the tutors had to stay for the full time and record their reasons if they were unable to do so. However, the short visit meant Y did not have the provision in his EHC Plan, which was fault.
46. The Council has been unable to evidence how long the tutors stayed with Y on the other sessions so I cannot say whether Y received the full commissioned hours. This was poor recording keeping and was fault. It caused Miss X avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
47. After Miss X raised wider concerns about Y’s tuition the Council agreed, in mid-December, 2024 to consider the issue more fully in early January 2025. This was appropriate. However, it then did not hold the meeting until the end of the month. This was two weeks late but on balance, does not amount to fault.

Tuition- provider C

48. The Council made a referral to another tuition service promptly. It made further referrals to two other providers by the end of January. In mid-February, one of the providers the Council had contacted began tutoring Y. In the first three weeks provider C was working with Y, in accordance with his EHC Plan, he should have had nine hours of tuition per week. In late February (week four), after contact from Miss X, the Council agreed Y could have 12 hours per week going forward. The tuition provided per week was as follows.
• Week one- Y received one hour of tuition;
• Week two- Y did not have any tuition;
• Week three- Y had five hours of tuition. Provider C had booked Y for six hours but Y was unable to manage the additional hour;
• Week four- Y had at least four hours of tuition. Provider C had booked Y for 7 hours and 15 minutes but Y asked to end his tuition early;
• Week five- Y did not have any tuition. The Council and provider C say Miss X cancelled the Monday session, which Miss X disputes. Miss X cancelled the Tuesday session for family reasons. On the Thursday, Miss X told the Council she did not want Y to have any more tuition until she had a written plan for his education. She said Y’s mental health and wellbeing was very poor because of his poor education. Miss X disputes that she cancelled the tuition on Thursday, she said Y’s tutor had suggested a pause until a plan was in place.
• Week six- Y did not have any tuition. On the Monday Miss X repeated that she did not want Y to have any tuition because she felt the Council and provider C did not have a suitable plan for Y’s tuition or wider education. She said she did not want the tuition to go ahead until a suitable plan was in place. Later in the week, Miss X contacted Y’s tutor to ask why the sessions had not gone ahead. On the Thursday, she said she expected the tutor to attend the next day with a plan for Y’s sessions and a timetable. Miss X said Y’s tutors had agreed they did not know what direction Y’s tuition should take. On the Friday, provider C said the tutor would be in contact about restarting and it would like to have a meeting with Miss X to discuss a plan for Y.
• Week seven- Y did not have any tuition. At the start of the week, Miss X told provider C that Y had completely disengaged from education. She said she was unhappy with Y’s tuition so far and that the tutor had not visited to discuss a plan for Y. Miss X said she wanted someone to sort out Y’s education and that she would not speak to anyone without a school present as Y was placed on EOTAS without her agreement and it was for the Council to arrange his education. At the end of the week, provider C asked Miss X if she wanted it to find different tutors for Y; and
• Week eight- Y did not have any tuition. Provider C told Miss X that because it had been unable to speak with her or Y about her concerns with his education it would look for new tutors. This was at the end of March.
49. By late April provider C ended its service because it could not find any suitable tutors.
50. The Council contacted two tuition providers in early May. One of the providers, provider D, contacted Miss X in early June. Miss X told the Council she was very upset the provider had contacted her. Y continued without tuition for the remainder of the school year.

Findings

51. Although the Council acted promptly to find a new tuition provider for Y, provider C ultimately began teaching Y in mid-February 2025, four weeks after provider B stopped working with him. This gap in education was fault in the form of service failure because although the loss of education was outside the Council’s control, it owed Y a non-delegable duty to ensure the special educational provision in his EHC Plan was provided. The fault meant Y missed out on four week’s tuition as set out in his EHC Plan.
52. There is no evidence the Council sent provider C a copy of Y’s November 2024 EHC Plan. This was fault and meant that throughout its time teaching Y, the tutors did not have full knowledge of Y’s needs and could not implement the strategies and techniques in the Plan.
53. Miss X is unhappy Y was not booked to have twelve hours of provision per week from the day provider C began working with him. The Council was not at fault. Y’s EHC Plan said he would receive nine hours of tuition per week, building to 12. Y had just started tuition with provider C and had previously said he did not want to do 12 hours. Therefore, it was not unreasonable for the Council to decide to start Y on nine hours. When Miss X said she wanted Y to have 12 hours, the Council acted on this, telling provider C to increase Y’s hours to 12 hours per week.
54. However, when provider C did begin teaching Y, it did not provide the tuition set out in Y’s EHC Plan. Over the first four weeks with provider C, Y should have had 39 hours of tuition. The Council was responsible for 24 hours and 45 minutes of lost provision. This was fault and meant Y went without the education he should have had.
55. Of the remaining 14 hours 15 minutes, Y either received tuition or was unable to manage the booked hours. The Council was not at fault for those missed hours.
56. I cannot come to a finding on whether the Council was at fault for Y not receiving tuition on the Monday of week five even on the balance of probabilities, as the evidence is conflicting.
57. From the Thursday of week five to the end of week six, Y did not receive tuition because Miss X had decided it should not go ahead. Miss X says Y’s tutor had suggested a pause, but records show it was Miss X’s decision because she felt there needed to be a firm plan for Y’s tuition. Despite being aware of this, there is no evidence that the Council took action to confirm what Y was learning each lesson or that the sessions were overall contributing towards a suitable end result. This was fault. However, it was Miss X’s decision to cancel the sessions altogether and I cannot say, even on balance, that had the Council not been at fault, it would have resulted in a plan which both the Council and Miss X felt was suitable. Ultimately, the courts have said it is for a council to decide what is a suitable education. Nevertheless, the fault caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty and frustration.
58. Y did not receive any tuition in week seven, which was fault. Although Miss X continued to explain her significant unhappiness with Y’s tuition in week seven, she had expressed her expectation that sessions would be happening at the end of week six. Therefore, provider C should have restarted sessions in week seven.
59. The Council was at fault from the end of March (week eight onwards). By then, provider C had not restarted teaching Y and was trying to find new tutors for him. The Council waited until late April, when provider C confirmed it had failed to find new tutors, to explore if other tuition providers had availability. It contacted provider D, but the provider did not contact Miss X until early June. There is no evidence the Council acted to minimise this delay.
60. The faults in paragraphs 58 and 59 caused Miss X avoidable frustration but I cannot say, even on balance, that they meant Y missed out on education. This is because by that point Y’s wellbeing had deteriorated and the evidence is he had disengaged with education. It is likely that had any tuition been offered, Y would have been unable to engage meaningfully with it.
61. The Council was not at fault for Y’s lack of tuition from early June 2025 to the end of the school year, even though Y did not receive tuition in that period. This is because, by identifying a space for Y with provider D, it had ‘secured’ the special educational provision in Y’s EHC Plan; it was Miss X’s decision not to communicate with provider D.

Outdoor education

62. From November 2024, Y attended provider A one day a week. Miss X said Y stopped attending altogether in early January 2025.
63. After the Council became aware of Y’s poor attendance in late January 2025, it agreed to explore whether another outdoor provider, provider E, had space for Y to attend one day per week instead.
64. In early February, the Council contacted provider E. The provider said it had space for Y and asked the Council to send it Y’s EHC Plan and a referral form. It said once it had that information, it would arrange for Y to visit.
65. In early March, the Council sent the form and shortly after, it formally agreed Y could attend provider E instead of provider A.
66. Y visited provider E in late March, but in April Miss X expressed concerns that it was unsuitable because it would only be until the end of the school year. Miss X said Y needed consistency. Y did not attend.

Findings

67. The Council initially acted promptly to speak to provider E about Y potentially attending there. However, it was at fault for delaying sending Y’s EHC Plan and referral form to provider E for a month. This meant Y’s visit, and the Council’s decision to formally agree provider E was delayed.
68. The fault caused Miss X frustration, but I cannot say, even on balance, that it meant Y missed out on provision. That is because when provider E was ready for Y to attend from April onwards, Y did not attend. It is likely that would have been the case if provider E was ready in March.

Personal budget

69. In mid-November 2024, following a tutor cancelling an appointment due to ill health, Miss X told the Council she was very unhappy that Y was missing out on provision he was entitled to. Miss X told the Council she wanted a personal budget. Miss X later asked the Council for a personal budget so she could arrange more support for Y and to pay for a private post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) specialist.
70. In early December, Miss X again asked the Council for a personal budget. The Council told her to detail what she wanted the personal budget for, and it would consider her request.
71. Miss X asked for a personal budget several times in mid-December 2024 and January 2025. She said it was so she could arrange suitable education for Y but did not provide any more detail.
72. In early February 2025, the Council told Miss X that it was willing to consider her request for a personal budget, but she needed to tell it what she wanted one for. By mid-February, Miss X said she felt Y needed:
• To be seen by a PTSD specialist, educational psychologist and occupational therapist;
• Coloured see through rulers to place over text (overlays);
• A laptop;
• Special pens;
• Coloured paper;
• Maths tuition for 4.5 hours per week;
• His tutors to have training in autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder;
• Community support activities; and
• Access to a careers advisor.
73. In late February, Miss X told provider C she wanted a laptop and reading pen for Y. A reading pen is an electronic pen which, when passed over text, turns the text into audio for the person to hear. Provider C spoke to the Council which confirmed it would pay for the cost of provider C loaning a laptop to Y. It said it would consider Miss X’s request for a reading pen separately. Y had use of the laptop shortly after.
74. The Council contacted Miss X in early March to remind her it was waiting for details of what she wanted a personal budget for. Miss X said she wanted a laptop, overlays and a reading pen. She provided costs for that equipment.
75. The Council responded to Miss X shortly after. Its response included that it would not provide overlays because they were not specified in section F of Y’s EHC Plan. It told Miss X it was still waiting for details of what she wanted the personal budget for. Miss X repeated she wanted it for a laptop, overlays, rulers and pens.
76. The Council again told Miss X it was waiting for more information on why she wanted the budget. Miss X said she had sent details previously and the laptop from provider C was not useful as the keys were too small for Y to use.
77. The Council asked Miss X whether she wanted it to consider her request for a personal budget for a laptop, overlays and a reading pen, or if she had more to add. Miss X said she was looking into the costs for PTSD treatment. Miss X responded to say she needed to get advice on a PB and the suitability of Y’s EHC Plan. Miss X said she wanted Y to have a mentor and help with social interactions.
78. In mid-April, the Council’s final complaint response stated again that it did not have to provide overlays for Y because they were not specified in section F of Y’s EHC Plan. It said Y received suitable resources, including the loaned laptop. The Council said if Miss X did not confirm what else she wanted to be included in her personal budget request within the next 10 days, it would come to a final decision on her request.
79. At the end of April, the Council told Miss X it was deferring its decision on Y’s personal budget. It asked if Miss X would agree to the Council arranging an assessment of Y’s visual needs before it decided what equipment he needed.

Findings

80. A personal budget is the amount of money a council has decided is necessary to secure the special educational provision in a child or young person’s EHC Plan. Parents often ask for one so they can then ask for direct payments to commission that provision themselves. The Council only had to consider Miss X’s requests for a personal budget during the annual review process. Nonetheless, it was evidently willing to consider Miss X’s requests outside that process, and it still owed Y the duty to secure the special educational provision in his EHC Plan.
81. Although Miss X asked for a personal budget in November 2024, it was not clear what she wanted it for. Initially, it appeared Miss X wanted the personal budget to commission additional support, including PTSD treatment, that was not in Y’s EHC Plan. However, she later said she wanted to commission Y’s special educational provision, including the package of tuition, herself. Given that, it was not fault for the Council to ask Miss X to clarify what she wanted the personal budget for in December 2024 and early February 2025.
82. However, from mid-February 2025 onwards, Miss X repeatedly specified what she wanted the budget for. While Miss X was not always consistent in what she wanted, she did provide enough detail for the Council to be able to consider her request. At least some of the things she asked for could be considered part of Y’s special educational provision, either as technology, or as “adaptations resources”. As such, the Council should have made a decision on whether it would agree a personal budget, and direct payments, for some or all of the items Miss X asked for. Instead, it repeatedly asked Miss X for more information and ultimately deferred its decision entirely. This was fault.
83. The fault meant the Council failed to give Miss X a response to her request. This caused her frustration and prevented her from challenging any decision the Council might have made to refuse direct payments for some or all of the provision she wanted, by asking for a review.
84. However, I cannot say, even on balance, that had the Council not been at fault, it would have agreed to Miss X’s request. Miss X feels strongly that Y needs the items and therapies she requested. However, the Council only has to secure the special educational provision in Y's EHC Plan. The provision in Y’s EHC Plan did not state he needed to be seen by a PTSD specialist, educational psychologist or occupational therapist. It did not state Y needed support to carry out activities in the community or access to a career advisor or mentor. As such, it is unlikely that, had the Council not been at fault, it would have agreed to fund them. If Miss X felt they were necessary, she could have asked for them to be included in Y’s EHC Plan when the phase transfer review was ongoing, or by appealing the July 2025 EHC Plan.
85. Y’s EHC Plan stated he needed technology support if and when required and “adaptations resources” linked to his visual stress. While Miss X’s request for reading pens, rulers, coloured paper, overlays and a laptop with large keys could come under those criteria, it is not for the Ombudsman to interpret that wording, or to decide if it was necessary for Y at the time Miss X asked for it.
86. Finally, Miss X’s request for maths tuition and tutors to have specific training in autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder reflects her unhappiness with the tutors on offer for Y. It is likely the Council would have refused direct payments for that provision as it was commissioning tutors directly and there was no requirement in Y’s EHC Plan for his tutors to have had specific training.

Exams

87. The Council registered Y for his GCSE exams. However, in early March 2025, Y told the Council he did not want to take his GCSEs that summer. Miss X said this is because the issues with his education, including the tutoring, meant he was not ready for them. Miss X said Y would be interested in taking Functional Skills exams instead.
88. The Council cancelled Y’s GCSE exams and began arranging Functional Skills exams. However, in early May, Y told the Council he wanted to take his GCSE’s. This was not possible by the end of summer 2025.

Findings

89. The Council was not at fault for failing to ensure Y had arrangements in place for his year 11 exams in summer 2025. The exam period begins in early May, and Y decided to switch to Functional Skills in early March. The Council acted appropriately by trying to arrange those exams before Y decided he did want to do GCSEs instead. By that time, the exam period had begun.

Back to top

Action

90. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions:
1. Apologise to Miss X for the frustration and uncertainty she felt because of the fault set out in this decision. 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 the apology;
2. Pay Miss X £500 to recognise that frustration and uncertainty;
3. Pay Miss X £1000 to recognise the impact of the lost tuition and other special educational provision on Y; and
4. Remind staff that when commissioning an organisation to deliver the special educational provision in a child’s EHC Plan, they must send a copy of that Plan to the provider and keep a record of doing so.
91. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Review why it does not have any records of the hours of tuition Y received from provider B. The Council will consider what steps it needs to take to improve its record keeping for children receiving EOTAS in future and will tell the Ombudsman when it plans to complete those steps by.
2. Identify what steps it needs to take to ensure it has appropriate systems in place to keep oversight of the number of hours of tuition a child is receiving per week, to ensure they are in line with the child’s EHC Plan. The Council will tell the Ombudsman what those steps are and when it will complete them by.
92. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

93. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy that injustice and prevent fault in future.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman