Summary: We find that the Council failed to provide the individual tuition as required under the complainant’s brother’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This has caused detriment to his brother’s abilities and has caused avoidable distress and time and trouble for the complainant. The Council has accepted our recommended remedy for the injustice, and therefore we are closing the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X is complaining on behalf of his brother (Y). Y is severely disabled, nonverbal and has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
2. Mr X complained that the Council failed to provide the individual tuition to Y between January to November 2025 as required by Y’s EHC Plan. Mr X also complained that the Council failed to arrange a personal budget as Mr X had requested.
3. Mr X says that, without the required education, Y has been deprived of essential therapies and support, critical for his development, causing regression in Y’s communication abilities and increased frustration.
4. Y lives at home with his mother supported by a care package from Adult Services. Mr X says that he had to return to live with his mother to help care for Y, otherwise there was a possibility his brother would have to be placed in a care home. Mr X and his mother have the fulltime ongoing responsibility for Y, and this has placed a significant strain on the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this report, we have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. 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. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. We 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).
7. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability-SEND) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
8. We also will not normally investigate a complaint whereby the complainant had an alternative remedy by means of appeal to the SEND Tribunal unless we consider that there are reasons why the complainant could not resort to this remedy.
9. 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).
10. 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

11. The Council investigated the complaint and sent a final complaint response in May 2025. In August 2025, the Council told the complainant it planned to cease his brother’s EHC Plan.
12. Although the Council has not investigated events after May 2025, Mr X’s complaints since this date are a continuation of his earlier concerns and so it is appropriate to incorporate these later events into our investigation. Therefore, with the Council’s agreement, I have investigated events between January to November 2025.
13. Any complaints after November 2025 are new complaints for the Council to consider first.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance, as set out below. I issued a draft decision statement to Mr X and to the Council and I have taken into account their further comments before I reached my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

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.
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. 
• Section J: Details of any personal budget made. 

17. 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).

Facts of this case

18. Y is a young adult and has significant care needs. Y expresses his basic needs through facial expressions and body language. He has autism with motor and sensory difficulties. Initially, Y’s EHC Plan stated he should be placed at a college. But it proved very difficult to find a suitable placement. The Council accepted that it failed to provide education in accordance with Y’s EHC Plan from September 2023 to December 2024. We have already dealt with, and remedied, a complaint about this period.
19. In January 2025, because it was impossible to find a college placement, the Council agreed to provide individual tuition at ten hours per week. The Council found suitable tutors. In February 2025, there was an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan. The review noted that Y had a care package jointly funded by health and social care, totalling 111 hours per week. This included three nights of care.
20. It was noted that Mr X asked for an updated Occupational Therapy (OT) report and Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) report because the previous ones were outdated. Mr X said that they were no longer applicable. It is not clear what happened to these requests. Mr X says that they were ignored by the Council.
21. The review noted that the education focus was to try to improve Y’s communication skills and there was no request for a change of education support. But it was noted that the Council intended to ask its Panel to consider how to proceed with Y’s EHC Plan.
22. The Council says that, between January to April 2025, it provided ten hours tuition per week. Mr X disputes this, saying thirty-six hours were missed.
23. From April 2025, there was no tuition. Mr X complained and, in May 2025, the Council agreed that there had been no tuition, and it should try to make up the lost hours in education. The Council apologised for this fault and said that it would continue to try to resolve the situation. The Council also said it would explain to Mr X how he could request a personal budget.
24. The lack of tuition for Y continued to the end of July 2025. The Council says that it was very difficult to find a suitable tutor who could manage Y’s behaviours. English is also not his first language. The Council calculated that Y had missed eleven school weeks of individual tuition between April to July 2025 (there is no tuition during the school holidays).
25. Mr X says that the problem was that the Council did not commission an OT or SALT assessment to inform the educational provision.
26. In mid-July 2025, Mr X asked for a personal budget so that he could arrange the tuition for his brother and the OT and SALT. As Mr X has pointed out, this request was made to assist the Council in meeting its statutory duties. In early August 2025, the Council wrote to Y’s mother to say it intended to cease Y’s EHC Plan. The Council informed her of the right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.
27. In November 2025, the Council refused the request for a personal budget because the Council intended to cease the EHC Plan.
28. Mr X has appealed the intention to cease to the SEND Tribunal. I understand that this is still being considered by the Tribunal. We cannot pursue a complaint about this decision because this is a matter for the Tribunal to decide. It will also be for the Tribunal to decide whether updated OT and SALT reports are required.
29. But the Council accepts that the EHC Plan remains in force until the Tribunal makes its decision.
30. In November 2025, Mr X resubmitted the request for a personal budget and sent an estimate to the Council for this. In January 2026, the Council sought clarification about the estimate.
31. Y is still without the educational input required by his EHC Plan.

Findings

32. Y has significant needs, and this is reflected in the comprehensive care package. The Council says it has been difficult for it to find, and retain, tutors who are suitable (and can communicate in Y’s language) and who can manage Y’s behaviours.
33. Mr X understands this and hence he asked for a personal budget. The Council took three months to refuse his first request for such a budget, but it has responded more promptly to his second request made in November 2025.
34. I consider that the Council took too long to determine the first request for a personal budget. It was clear the Council struggled to provide the tuition for reasons it has explained. But Mr X was coming up with a viable alternative way to ensure Y received the education which he required, and I consider the Council should have acted promptly. Accordingly, I find fault.
35. I cannot say the Council would have agreed the personal budget if it had acted promptly. But, at least, Mr X would have had a decision. Also, the Council still had a duty to provide the tuition even if it had decided to cease the EHC Plan. I consider the Council failed to have regard to its duty to provide the required provision until the SEND Tribunal decision. I find this is fault.
36. The Council also failed to deal with Mr X’s request for an updated OT and SALT assessment, given Mr X explained that the previous reports were out of date and Y’s needs had changed. The Council should have responded to this request and, therefore I find its failure to do so amounts to fault.
37. In the Council’s complaint response of May 2025, to its credit the Council accepted that it had not provided the required tuition, and it should try to make up the shortfall. This failure occurred between April to November 2025 (the end date of my investigation). This amounts to seven school months of lost tuition for Y.
38. It follows that Y’s progress would have been hindered by the lack of tuition, and Mr X and his mother caused avoidable distress. However, I recognise the difficulties the Council has experienced in finding tutors, which are likely to be for reasons beyond its control, and indeed Mr X also recognised this and hence requested a personal budget.

Back to top

Action

39. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.
40. When this is not possible, we may recommend the council makes a symbolic payment. Where that takes the form of a payment, it is often a modest amount whose value is intended to be largely symbolic rather than purely financial. We also support organisational learning and improvements to help others.
41. We expect senior officers from councils to make effective, timely and specific apologies for the faults we have identified.
42. Our guidance on remedies also says that “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 impact of that loss”. What is proportionate in an individual case will take account of factors such as:

• the severity of the child’s special educational needs;
• any educational provision the child received that fell short of full-time education;
• 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.

43. Within one month of the final statement, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mr X for the faults and injustice identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
2. Y has missed out on seven school months of individual tuition at ten hours per week.I have therefore reduced our tariff for lost education. The Council will make a symbolic payment of £1,800 which Mr X can use to the benefit of Y. This payment also recognizes the avoidable distress caused to Mr X and his mother by the Council’s faults;
3. the Council will make a symbolic payment of £300 for the failure to respond to the request for an updated OT and SALT report. (The SEND Tribunal can decide on whether these are required);
4. the Council will provide a decision on Mr X’s request for a personal budget unless in the meantime the SEND Tribunal decides to cease Y’s EHC Plan; and
5. the Council will remind staff that an EHC Plan remains in force until such time as any appeal to a SEND Tribunal has been completed.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed the remedy for the injustice. Therefore, I am closing the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman