Summary: The Council failed to ensure it consulted Z’s preferred college placement to see if they could attend. It then delayed issuing Z’s Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review and failed to ensure Z had suitable education in place for one year. The Council’s faults led to avoidable missed provision for Z and distress and frustration for Z and their parent, Ms X. To recognise the injustice caused by the faults in this case, the Council has agreed to apologise, pay Ms X £3,200 and take action to improve its services.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. Failed to ensure her child, Z, had a gradual planned transition to their post-16 college in September 2024;
2. Failed to arrange the tuition it said it would when Z could no longer attend their post-16 college in September 2024;
3. Wrongly declined her requests for online, home-based tuition to be put in place for Z; and
4. Failed to communicate with her properly about her child’s education.
2. Ms X said because of the Council’s actions, Z missed out on a year of education, has been caused distress and Ms X has been caused a period of significant 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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. 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. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
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 exercised discretion (my choice) to investigate events beyond the date of the Council’s final complaint response of 20 March 2025.
9. This is because there is evidence of ongoing injustice from March 2025 onwards, arising from the faults Ms X originally complained of. I am satisfied the Council has had the opportunity to respond regarding this later period through its response to my enquiries and therefore it is not reasonable to ask Ms X to make a new complaint only covering this later period.
10. I have investigated events from when they began in March 2024 up to September 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Ms X and the Council were given an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. All comments received were considered before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

EHC Plans

13. A young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This sets out their needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
14. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include:
• Section B: The child or young person’s special educational needs;
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person; and
• Section I: The name and/or type of school. 
15. We cannot direct changes to the sections about education or name a different educational setting. Only the SEND Tribunal can do that.
16. Councils are responsible for making sure that arrangements specified in the EHC Plan are put in place. We can look at complaints about this, such as where support set out in the EHC Plan has not been provided, or where there have been delays in the process.

Annual reviews (post-16)

17. When transferring between different phases of education, EHC Plans must be reviewed in good time before the transfer, to allow time for planning and commissioning any support needed at the new institution.
18. EHC Plans generally must be reviewed every twelve months. However for young people moving from secondary school to a post-16 institution or apprenticeship, the SEND Code of Practice sets a specific deadline.
19. It says the review and any amendments to the EHC Plan – including specifying the post-16 provision and naming the institution – must be completed by 31 March in the calendar year of the transfer. (SEND Code of Practice, 9.180)

EOTIC

20. Education otherwise than in a school (EOTAS) or otherwise than in a college (EOTIC) is a package of support children or young people can access if they cannot attend any school or college due to their special educational needs.
21. EOTAS and EOTIC are different to elective home education because the Council is responsible for arranging and paying for the provision. In cases where a parent home educates their child, they are responsible for arranging the education.

What happened

Background

22. Z was issued with an EHC Plan for the first time in late March 2023. This set out Z’s needs and the additional support Z required at their secondary school.
23. The Council had to review this EHC Plan in enough time to issue another EHC Plan for Z by 31 March 2024. This Plan needed to set out the arrangements for Z’s post-16 transition, including the post-16 education placement Z would attend.

Key events

24. The Council held an annual review of Z’s EHC Plan on 11 March 2024 and did not issue a new EHC Plan for Z by the 31 March 2024 deadline.
25. The attendees at the annual review considered the planning and transition arrangements for Z moving to post-16. They also noted Z’s preferred placement – College A.
26. The annual review notes said once a college place was confirmed, the school would work with College A to ensure they had a clear picture of Z’s needs and that they would start the transition process alongside Ms X to ensure it was successful.
27. The Council said according to its records, it looked like it had consulted College A using its online system in April 2024. However several months later Ms X contacted College A who said Z did not yet have a place for that year. The records are unclear about the issues which led to this. The Council told the Ombudsman the consultation had “gone astray” and apologised to Ms X.
28. In late August 2024, Z was offered a place at College A. Z was due to start on 9 September. Ms X contacted the Council to say she had concerns Z would not manage in the college environment at present due to their medical needs and anxiety and asked if Z could re-sit their GCSEs instead of starting post-16 college. The Council put the request to its relevant panel for consideration. Ms X asked the panel to consider putting in place an EOTIC package for Z.
29. In the meantime, Z did start at College A but the placement was unsuccessful after only a few days. Ms X said Z was too anxious and too unwell to attend.
30. The Council’s panel decided there was not enough evidence to show Z needed an EOTIC package but agreed to fund tuition for Z for one year so they could re-sit their GCSEs rather than starting at college in that year.
31. The Council consulted non-classroom-based education services from September 2024 to carry out this provision. It was unsuccessful in finding a provider until a package of provision was arranged in late November 2024. However for reasons that are not clear, this package did not begin.
32. Ms X complained to the Council in mid-September and it took the Council more than four months to respond. When it did, it accepted that Z had no education in place from September to December 2024 due to Council fault and apologised. It offered to pay Ms X £1,500 to recognise this missed provision and £400 for the time and trouble she was put to and the frustration caused by its delayed complaint handling. Ms X was unhappy and complained at the second stage of the complaints process.
33. The Council issued Z’s EHC Plan on 29 January 2025. This said Z should attend a post-16 college or other post-16 provider but did not name any provider specifically. Section F listed similar support to Z’s last Plan.
34. Ms X did not appeal this Plan to the SEND Tribunal. She and the Council were still in agreement that in the meantime, Z needed a tuition service to assist Z with re-sitting their GCSEs.
35. The Council sent its final complaint response to Ms X on 20 March 2025. It said it recognised Z still did not have education in place but it was working to secure a suitable tuition service.
36. Other tuition services were consulted in 2025 but mostly could not provide tuition in line with Z’s needs or did not respond. The Council identified suitable tuition later that year and this started in September 2025.
37. The Council told the Ombudsman it accepted it failed to arrange education for Z from September 2024 to September 2025, which led to Z missing out on education for one academic year.

My findings

Post-16 transition

38. The Council failed to issue Z’s EHC Plan setting out the details of their post-16 placement and transition arrangements by 31 March 2024. The Council did not issue this until late January 2025. This significant delay was fault.
39. The Council also failed to ensure Z had a place at their preferred college in good time for a start in September 2024, due to issues that are unclear regarding its consultation process. This led to Z not having a place confirmed until late August 2024.
40. The school said in the March 2024 annual review it would work with Ms X and the new college to transition Z appropriately once Z had a confirmed place. Therefore the significant delay in confirming a post-16 college placement for Z meant the school could not carry out the transition as planned. This was fault by the Council and caused a period of distress for Z and Ms X with an avoidably rushed transition to college.

Missed education

41. The Council failed to ensure Z received education for one year and this was fault. This fault caused Z and Ms X distress and frustration. Z’s loss of provision was also particularly challenging for them as this happened in a key transition year in their post-16 education.

Complaint handling

42. When Ms X complained to the Council, it significantly delayed responding to her complaint and this was further fault. This fault caused Ms X avoidable frustration at an already difficult time.
43. Following other Ombudsman investigations covering a similar time to this one, we also found fault causing injustice due to delayed complaint handling. As a result, the Council has agreed to report to us on an action plan to prevent future delays. As this service improvement is already underway, I have not repeated it below.

Back to top

Action

44. Within one month of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the faults in this case where it has not done so already through its complaints process;
2. Pay Ms X £3,000 to reflect the three terms of education Z missed due to fault by the Council; and
3. Pay Ms X £200 to reflect the period of distress caused to her and Z during Z’s transition to college, when the Council’s consultation to Z’s college was not actioned until weeks before they were due to start.
45. Within three months of the date of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Investigate and report back to the Ombudsman on why Z did not have their EHC Plan issued by 31 March 2025 setting out the details of their post-16 transition and outline the action it has taken to ensure other children and young people are not similarly affected during key transition years in their education; and
2. Outline what, if any, issues have been identified in the Council’s processes for consulting schools, colleges and other education providers which led to the faults in this case including missed provision. The Council should then outline any action it is taking to prevent recurrence of these issues in future.
46. If the Council has already paid Ms X the £1,900 financial remedy it offered to pay in its complaint response, this amount should be deducted from the recommended financial remedy above.
47. We publish Guidance on Remedies which sets out, in section 3.2, our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
48. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

49. I have found fault causing injustice and the Council has agreed to take action to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman