Summary: Miss F complained the Council failed to provide her son with the special educational needs support set out in his EHC plan, delayed issuing a new plan and failed to secure an exam centre for his GCSEs. We found fault which caused Miss F’s son to miss some provision and to miss out on taking most of his GCSEs. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss F complained the Council failed to:
• Provide her son with the special educational needs support set out in his EHC plan from October 2024 to July 2025.
• Issue a final EHC plan on time following the May 2024 annual review.
• Secure exam centres for some of the public exams he was due to take in summer term 2025.
• Pay for his online exams on time.
2. As a result her son was unable to take all his exams and was caused prolonged uncertainty and significant distress, contributing to increased exam anxiety. This has had a direct and negative impact on his education and health.

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. 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)
5. 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

6. I spoke to Miss F about her complaint and considered the information she sent, the Council’s response to my enquiries and relevant law and guidance including the Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice ("the Code").
7. Miss F 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

Relevant law and guidance

Special educational needs

8. A child with special educational needs (SEND) may have an education, health and care (EHC) plan. The EHC plan sets out the child's educational needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. 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 2014).
9. The council must arrange for the EHC plan to be reviewed at least once a year. 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 discontinue the EHC plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and the Code paragraph 9.176)
10. If the council is amending the plan, it must do so without delay and issue an amendment notice. Although the Code does not give any deadline for the issuing of an amendment notice, a 2022 high court decision says any draft amended plan must be issued within four weeks of the annual review. The final amended plan must be issued within 12 weeks of the annual review. (L & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Devon County Council [2022] EWHC 493 (Admin))
11. Parents have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal if they disagree with the SEND provision, the school named in their child's plan, or the fact that no school or other provider is named.
12. The Ombudsman cannot look at complaints about what is in the EHC plan but can look at other matters, such as where support set out has not been provided or where there have been delays in the process.

Arrangements for public exams and education other than at school

13. Education otherwise than at school (EOTAS) is special educational provision delivered outside any school setting when a local authority decides that attending school would be inappropriate for a child or young person with an EHC plan. Under Section 61 of the Children and Families Act 2014, a local authority may arrange such provision if it is satisfied school‑based education is unsuitable. EOTAS is different from elective home education because the local authority remains responsible for securing and funding the provision. The provision is set out in the EHC plan.
14. Exam access arrangements are adjustments, such as extra time, a reader, or a separate room, designed to remove barriers for students with SEND. The Joint Council for Qualifications (JCQ) guidance for the administration of exams says schools (acting as exam centres) apply to it to approve access arrangements and any additional reasonable adjustments for a candidate.
15. A private candidate is a student who enters an exam independently, rather than through a school or college. They arrange their own exam centre and pay their own exam fees.
16. In this case, School B usually arranges for exams to be taken at home with a remote invigilator. It treats its students as private candidates, so if an exam centre is needed it is the student or parent’s responsibility to book an exam centre. The exam centre would then apply to JCQ for access arrangements. There is a list of exam centres on School B’s website.

What happened

17. Miss F’s son, J, has special educational needs and an EHC plan. The EHC plan issued on 23 September 2022 said J would receive a package of education at home (EOTAS) based on online learning, a programme of exercise recommended by a physiotherapist, training in touch-typing, specialist maths and science support and help with social skills. The Council arranged for J to attend an online school, School A. J was due to take seven GCSEs in summer 2025.
18. In relation to exams, the EHC plan said that:
• School A had an external exams arrangement assessor who would put everything in place for school and final GCSEs. It would need to determine which exam centres would be most suitable for J.
• In terms of schools for J to do his exams, the Council would fund any associated costs as he was no longer electively home educated. Nearer the time it would be a matter of approaching the relevant centres and see if they are able to accommodate J and his access arrangements. The Council would investigate appropriate exam centres for J.
19. In 2023, the online education provider changed to School B. There was no annual review in 2023. This has been investigated in another complaint (our ref 24011517). I have not seen any evidence of a discussion in 2023 between School B and the Council about the exam access arrangements.
20. There was an annual review meeting on 20 May 2024. It recommended updates to the EHC plan, an assessment for dyscalculia, engaging a tutor for additional support with maths and an increase in mentoring support.
21. I have not seen any letter from the Council with its decision to amend, maintain or discontinue the EHC plan. An amended final EHC plan should have been issued by mid August.
22. The dyscalculia assessment went ahead and J was diagnosed with dyscalculia and dyslexia. As a result he would require a reader for his maths and science exams.
23. Miss F contacted the Council at the end of August 2024. She asked it to take the dyscalculia assessment into account before issuing the final EHC plan. She also said J’s film studies exam would need to be held in an exam centre.
24. A maths tutor was found but in October there was a dispute about how to provide the tuition. The tuition company would not agree to feedback to J and Miss F for the last 15 minutes of each session. The tuition therefore did not go ahead.
25. Miss F was due to meet the Council on 23 October but the officer did not attend. Miss F then met with a manager on 12 November. She told the manager that J was not receiving maths tuition and that exam centres needed to be found. The manager agreed to ask the officer to contact a community centre to act as the exam centre.
26. Miss F met the officer on 12 December and on 20 December. The officer agreed to book an exam centre and check with School B what arrangements were needed for J’s exams. The officer would also discuss the maths tuition. The officer emailed School B, I have not seen a direct reply.
27. School B contacted the Council in January 2025 asking about payment for mock exams, the four online GCSEs it would be invigilating in J’s home, and additional coaching for J. The Council issued a purchase order on 19 February so that School B could issue invoices for the coaching and mock exams. I have not seen any purchase order or payment for the online GCSEs.
28. On 30 January there was a discussion by email between School B, the Council and Miss F about the exam centre. The officer had contacted the community centre. The Council says it never heard back. Miss F and School B continued to email the Council about the exam centre. I have not seen any reply.
29. Miss F made a formal complaint on 12 February that J’s final EHC plan had still not been issued and no exam centre had been booked. The Council’s response of 12 March refers to Miss F’s other child.
30. Miss F met another officer on 11 March. He said there had been no response from the community centre and another one was being looked into. Miss F said that due to the delay in arranging an exam centre, School B would now hold two of the exams online at home. This would be more suitable to meet J’s needs; all that was needed was a reader. The Council was unsure the exams could be held at J’s home. Miss F said it was probably too late to arrange the film studies exam. I have seen no evidence of any further action by the Council in relation to finding a reader, booking an exam centre or paying for the online GCSEs.
31. The final EHC plan was issued on 31 March 2025; it noted J would need a reader to do maths and science exams.
32. Miss F asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The Council’s response on 24 June said Miss F’s agreement with the Council was to have the exams at home, the Council would fund these. It said the Council had contacted School B in December 2024 to facilitate the exams but had not received a reply.
33. Miss F came to the Ombudsman. She said no exam centres had been booked and because the Council had failed to pay for the online GCSEs, after months of uncertainty the school had allowed J to sit two exams without payment. This prolonged lack of clarity had caused significant distress, increased exam anxiety, and had a particularly harmful impact on J’s mental well‑being and confidence as an autistic young person, negatively affecting his education and health.

My findings

34. Following the 20 May 2024 annual review meeting, a final EHC plan should have been issued by mid-August 2024. It was not issued until 31 March 2025. This is fault causing distress and uncertainty about what SEND support could have been put in place in September 2024 for a significant phase in J’s education. The delay also contributed to the problems with the exam arrangements, which I will deal with below.
35. J was receiving EOTAS, it was therefore the Council’s responsibility to make the arrangements for his public exams. Exam access arrangements are based on the education provider’s views of what J’s needs were and how he normally works. I therefore would have expected to see a discussion between the Council and School B about what J’s access arrangements would be and what exam centres were needed and may be suitable.
36. The exam arrangements were referred to in the September 2022 EHC plan so should have been discussed at the May 2024 annual review. This should have been the starting point for a discussion between School B and the Council. In addition, up to date exam arrangements should have been reflected in the amended EHC plan which should have been issued by the start of the 2024/252 academic year. As exam centres are usually booked by the December before the exams, or by February at the latest, the Council should have acted in the autumn term 2024/25 to make arrangements for J’s exams. I have seen no evidence of any action before December 2024. This is fault.
37. School B had a list of possible exam centres; I have seen no evidence these were considered so I do not know if any of them would have been suitable. The Council contacted a community centre in December 2024 but it did not reply. I have seen no evidence the Council tried another centre until March 2025. This is fault. The Council should have been more proactive and acted sooner to book an exam centre by December 2024.
38. Its failure to do so meant J was unable to take three GCSEs, including maths and science which are core subjects. This is a significant injustice causing him distress and to either miss out on the opportunity to get the qualifications or to have to delay them.
39. In addition, I have not seen evidence that the Council issued a purchase order for the online GCSEs J was due to take at home in May/June 2025. In February 2025, four exams were being arranged by School B. The Council failed to pay for these, which is fault. As a result two further GCSEs could not be taken, which is a significant injustice to J, causing him distress and to either miss out on the opportunity to get the qualifications or to have to delay them. It is unclear whether School B has since been paid for the two English exams J took.
40. Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 to £2,400 per term to acknowledge the harm caused by that loss. The figure should be based on the impact on the child and take account of factors such as:
• Whether additional provision can now remedy some or all of the loss.
• Whether the period concerned was a significant one for the child or young person’s school career – for example the first year of compulsory education, the transfer to secondary school, or the period preparing for public exams.
• Lost or delayed right of appeal to tribunal.
41. Although J did not miss out on all his education, I am satisfied that a payment of £2,400 is appropriate to remedy the significant injustice of being unable to take five GCSEs.
42. Miss F also complains the specialist maths support set out in J’s EHC plan was not provided. A tutor was found in autumn 2024 but it did not progress due to a dispute. The Council was aware of that problem by November 2024. Miss F asked for the tuition to be reinstated in January 2025 but I have not seen any evidence it was or that the Council discussed the dispute with the company or offered a new tutor. I therefore find there was a loss of some of the SEND provision set out in Section F (maths tuition) for the whole school year (three terms).
43. The Council’s stage one complaint response of 11 March 2025 wrongly referred to issues relating to J’s sibling. This is fault causing Miss F time and trouble as she had to escalate her complaint to stage two. The Council should apologise for this. The stage two response failed to establish that it was the Council’s responsibility to arrange the exams as J was having EOTAS, not being home educated.

Back to top

Action

44. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise and pay Miss F £3,800 made up of:
• £2,400 to remedy the lost opportunity to take GCSEs in summer 2025.
• £900 (£300 per term) to remedy the lost SEND provision for a school year.
• £500 to remedy the uncertainty caused by the eight-month delay in issuing the EHC plan.
45. 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 I have recommended.
46. Within three months of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Write a procedure for how it arranges public exams for students who are receiving EOTAS. This should include how exam centres will be sourced and booked, when it will contact any education provider about exam access arrangements and whose responsibility it will be to take these actions.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

48. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman