Summary: The Council was at fault for repeatedly failing to pay Ms X’s daughter’s direct payment invoices on time throughout the 2024/25 academic year. This caused Ms X distress, inconvenience and financial pressures, for which the Council has already provided a suitable remedy. It would not be proportionate to recommend any further action.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council repeatedly paid the budget for her daughter’s (Y’s) special educational needs support late. Ms X says she had a ’30 working day payment agreement’ with the Council, which it breached several times.
2. Ms X says the late payments have been a problem since 2023. She says she previously complained on two occasions and the Council apologised, but nothing changed.
3. Ms X says she emailed the Council (including the Director of children’s social care) about this matter several times but received no response.

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. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
6. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law and guidance.
8. Ms 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

Law and guidance

9. The government’s statutory ‘Special educational needs and disability (SEND) code of practice’ says there are four ways in which a child’s parent can be involved in securing special educational provision for the child:
• Direct payments – where individuals receive the cash to contract, purchase and manage services themselves.
• An arrangement whereby the council, school or college holds the funds and commissions the required support.
• Third party arrangements – where funds (direct payments) are paid to and managed by an individual or organisation on behalf of the child’s parent.
• A combination of the above.
10. Direct payments are cash payments made directly to the child’s parent, the young person or their nominee, allowing them to arrange provision themselves.
11. A child 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.
12. EHC plans should be used to actively monitor children’s progress towards their outcomes and longer-term aspirations. They must be reviewed by the council as a minimum every 12 months.
13. The Special Educational Needs (Personal Budgets) Regulations 2014 say a council may only make direct payments in respect of the special educational provision specified in an EHC plan (Regulation 6(2)).
14. The local authority must review the making and use of direct payments when conducting a review or a re-assessment of an EHC plan (Regulation 11(2)(b)).

What happened

15. Y has an EHC plan and receives education, and special educational needs support, under an EOTAS (‘education other than at school’) package. This is funded by direct payments from the Council to Ms X. During the period complained about, Ms X invoiced the Council for the cost of Y’s education, and the Council paid the invoice.
16. In early November 2024, Ms X sent an invoice to the Council. But she did not receive a response. She emailed the Council about this in late November and again in early December (the latter email being sent to the Director of children’s social care).
17. By mid-December, Ms X had still not received a response to her emails (or payment for the invoice). She made a formal complaint to the Council.
18. In early January 2025, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. It accepted that it had failed to pay the invoice in good time, and it had failed to respond to her emails. It apologised and confirmed that the payment had been made.
19. In late January, Ms X submitted another invoice. She itemised the support Y had received and added a 15% fee for “late payment of last invoice”.
20. Ms X emailed the Council about this second invoice in February and March, but the Council did not pay it. So she made another complaint.
21. At the end of March, the Council told Ms X that it had been waiting for Y’s EOTAS package to be signed off following her annual review. It said this had now happened and the invoice would be paid. It said it generally had six weeks to pay invoices, but, if Ms X was unhappy with this, she could arrange for termly payments to be made in advance.
22. In April, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint and noted that her invoice included a late payment charge which the Council would not pay. It asked her to reissue the invoice to the Council without the charge. It also offered her a symbolic financial remedy of £500 to recognise distress caused by the cumulative effect of successive delays.
23. Ms X reissued the invoice, with the late payment charge removed, at the end of April. The Council then paid it.
24. Ms X challenged the Council’s refusal to pay the late payment charge, and said its financial remedy was inadequate. But the Council did not change its mind.
25. In May, Ms X provided another invoice to the Council. But, again, the Council did not pay it. She complained about this again in July, saying this was “the third formal complaint I have made in the last six months regarding repeated late payment of an invoice”.
26. In early August, Ms X sent another invoice. She said she had “paid this out of my own pocket and need to be repaid as soon as possible”. She also referred to her ongoing complaint about the previous invoice.
27. The Council, again, upheld Ms X’s complaint and processed the outstanding payments. It apologised, again, and offered her a further £250 to recognise her injustice.
28. The Council also told Ms X that, from September, she would receive termly direct payments for Ys EOTAS package.
29. At the end of September, Ms X sent the Council a further invoice. The Council paid it on time.

My findings

30. The Council undoubtedly caused repeated delays in paying for Y’s education and special educational needs support during the 2024/25 academic year. It also failed to respond to her emails at certain points, particularly in late 2024. It accepted these failings in its complaint responses to Ms X.
31. The Council said it had six weeks to pay invoices. This was not in its direct payments policy. But it was nonetheless uncontested by Ms X, who refers to a ’30 working day’ payment window.
32. However, even using its own six-week timescale, the Council failed to make the payments on time on three occasions between November 2024 and August 2025, for which it was at fault.
33. Although there was some disagreement between the Council and Ms X about payment of her ‘late payment charge’ in early 2025 – and the Regulations and statutory guidance support the Council’s refusal to pay this charge – this was only a small part of the cumulative delay which built up over the course of the academic year.
34. And – while the Council could not actually pay Ms X’s late payment charge under its direct payment scheme – it is understandable, given the issues she experienced with previous payments, why she might take exceptional steps to try and encourage the Council to pay the invoices on time.
35. I am satisfied that this matter caused Ms X distress and inconvenience, and also financial pressures when she had to pay invoices herself to prevent Y losing support.
36. The question, however, is whether the Council need take any further action to recognise Ms X’s injustice. It has already apologised to her more than once and has offered her a total symbolic payment of £750.
37. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says we will usually recommend a payment for distress of up to £500. But we can recommend higher payments when then distress has been particularly severe or prolonged.
38. In Ms X’s case, her distress was certainly prolonged by the Council’s repeated failures to pay her invoices. But, even taking this into account, the amount already offered by the Council is in line with our guidance and I will not recommend an additional payment.
39. Ms X’s issue was eventually resolved by the Council switching her to termly payments, made in advance. And the Council also tells me it has hired a dedicated direct payments officer, who, it believes, “will ensure expedience and accuracy for all that are in receipt of direct payments”.
40. Time will tell whether this change to the Council’s staffing structure is effective. But, at this stage, I am satisfied that the Council has properly considered how to improve its service and I will make no further recommendations.

Back to top

Decision

41. The Council was at fault. It has already remedied Ms X’s personal injustice, and therefore no further action is needed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman