Summary: Mr X complained that the Council had failed to ensure his son’s school adhered to his Education, Health and Care Plan, and had delayed in dealing with Mr X’s complaint. We consider the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns properly and we accept its decision that there had been some fault. However, we do not find the resulting injustice is as claimed by Mr X and that an apology is sufficient remedy. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained that, between September 2024 to March 2025, the Council failed to ensure his son’s (Y’s) school (School B) met the requirements of Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, in particular:
1. Y’s EHC Plan required that he should have a class size fewer than 10 pupils with high staff to pupil ratio. Although the Council recognised that Y’s school did not provide this from September 2024, the Council wrongly considered Y had not suffered any educational detriment; and
2. Mr X complained about the delay in dealing with his complaint.
2. Mr X says Y has been caused a detriment to his education and has only progressed because Mr X paid for private tuition (£810) to make up for the lack of sufficient support. Mr X also says that he has been caused avoidable distress and time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.

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’.
4. 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. 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.
6. We 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.
7. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools unless it relates to special educational needs, when the schools are acting on behalf of the council to secure educational provision as set out in Section F of the young person’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
8. 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(i), as amended).
9. 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

10. I looked at events from September 2024 to March 2025, which is when Mr X first made his complaint to the Council. Any complaints after this date are new complaints which Mr X would have to refer to the Council first.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Education, Health and Care Plans

13. 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.
14. 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. 

15. 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). 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. 

Facts of this case

16. Y attends a special school (School B) for pupils with severe learning difficulties and/or autism. Y has severe and complex difficulties.
17. Mr X appealed Y’s EHC Plan of 2023. The SEND Tribunal was not completed until March 2025 with an amended EHC Plan issued in April 2025.
18. Mr X considered that the SEND Tribunal did not take into account all the necessary information before reaching its decision. That concern is not part of our investigation.
19. Y’s 2023 EHC Plan stated: “ [Y] requires a learning environment which is sensitive to his sensory and learning needs, including small classes sizes (fewer than 10 learners) and with high staff to pupil ratios (at least one teacher and three classroom assistants) to ensure his safety and to ensure that his sensory, social, functional, communication and learning needs are met. “
20. In June 2024, Mr X complained to School B about his concerns regarding the class size for Y and the lack of sufficient support for him, stating Y required 1:2 support throughout the school day.
21. School B responded to Mr X’s concerns, but he was dissatisfied with the response. In December, Mr X arranged some private tuition for Y.
22. In mid-March 2025, Mr X complained to the Council, stating that he had complained to School B and School B had said the ratio in Y’s class was 11:4 whereas Y’s EHC Plan required a staff ratio of 9:4. Mr X also complained that School B had provided misleading information about Y’s class size. He stated that between June 2024 to January 2025, the ratio was either 11:4 or 10:4.

The Council’s complaint investigation

23. The Council considered Mr X’s complaint under its two stage corporate complaints procedure. It replied at stage one of its complaint procedures in early April 2025.
24. At stage one, the Council looked at the period from September 2023 to March 2025. The Council sought information from School B. For the period of September 2023 to July 2024, the Council did not uphold the complaint because it was satisfied that the ratio for Y’s class was in keeping with his EHC Plan.
25. For the period of September 2024 and March 2025, the Council partially upheld the complaint on the basis that, from September 2024, the ratio of staff to pupils exceeded Y’s EHC Plan as the ratio was 9:5 rather than the required 9:4. The Council explained that it was not possible for School B or the Council to guarantee the size of a class because, at times, pupils join classes in circumstances beyond the school or Council’s control, ie a Tribunal decision.
26. However, the Council considered that there had been no detriment to Y’s educational progress. The Council obtained a copy of Y’s September to December 2024 school report which stated Y had made notable progress and the SEND Tribunal’s assessment which concluded that Y was making adequate progress although acknowledging that there had been ‘ups and downs’.
27. In respect of the complaint about School B providing misleading information about Y’s class size, the Council asked School B about this. School B explained the information provided was not wholly accurate and provided further information. The Council explained this to Mr X, stating the information it had obtained contained pupil and staff names, so it could not be shared with him. But the Council said that this was now a matter between Mr X and School B.
28. The Council also apologized that the stage one response was four days late. The Council explained this was because it had been waiting for information from School B.
29. Mr X was dissatisfied. In mid-April, he asked for a stage two investigation. He asked for there to be a formal review of why inaccurate staffing information had been provided for the past eleven months and asked for an assessment of Y’s lost educational progress.
30. In his stage two request, he explained that, because of the wrong staff ratio, Y had not had help at lunchtime or playtime and his progress had deteriorated. Mr X told the Council that the Head of School B had told him in November 2024 that there was insufficient funding for lunchtime support. Mr X said that the Council had a statutory duty to ensure adherence to section F of Y’s EHC Plan.
31. Mr X was concerned that the Council had said it could not ‘guarantee’ the provision required in section F of Y’s EHC Plan.
32. Mr X explained to the Council that he was paying £60 per hour to a private tutor to support Y. He considered the Council should provide this because School B was in breach of ensuring adherence to Y’s EHC Plan. He requested an assessment of the detriment to Y by not having the required support.
33. The Council sent its stage two response within twenty working days. The Council explained that the information Mr X had received from School B was not wholly accurate because of an administrative error. The Council advised Mr X to take this up with School B directly. The Council also acknowledged that Mr X and some other parents had had a meeting with School B.
34. The Council did not uphold the complaint. But it accepted that there had been a slight delay in dealing with Mr X’s complaint at stage one and offered a symbolic payment of £25.00.
35. The Council did not comment on Mr X’s request for the Council to assess the educational harm to Y or his request that it met the private tuition costs.

The Council’s response to our enquiries

36. The Council has explained that, when a complaint is upheld at stage one and no further fault is found, the stage two complaint is recorded as not upheld. The Council acknowledges that this is confusing and it will be looking at its complaint process.
37. The Council says that it was unaware that Mr X had been providing private tuition for Y. The Council checked the SEND Tribunal, and it says that Mr X did not provide evidence that Y was receiving private tuition between September 2024 to March 2025.

Mr X’s further evidence

38. Mr X says he has spent the last eight months bringing this complaint. He says that he has information from another parent stating that there were twelve pupils in Y’s class between September 2024 to July 2025.
39. Mr X obtained a recent Educational Psychologist (EP) and Occupational Therapy (OT) report which both say that Y requires 1:1 fulltime support. Mr X considers that the need for this additional support has happened because of the previous lack of support for Y in his classroom, and by the increased class size.
40. Mr X is aware that the SEND Tribunal had said that it was satisfied that Y was making progress. But Mr X maintains that the Tribunal did not properly consider all the information.
41. In response to the draft decision statement, Mr X explained the class size for Y was specified in his EHC Plan to address his significant sensory and learning difficulties. School B had not told him that additional teaching staff were introduced to offset the increase in pupil’s numbers. And that differed from the explanation provided by the Council.
42. Mr X says Y’s access to learning is particularly sensitive to noise, sensory stimuli and supervision levels. Where the class size exceeds the specified levels, it follows that this will affect Y’s ability to engage in learning.
43. Mr X told the Council of the private tuition he was providing in April 2025 when he asked to escalate his complaint to stage two.
44. Mr X considers that the Council was aware of the lack of adherence to Y’s EHC Plan before he complained in March 2025 or reasonably should have known.
45. Mr X provided a copy of an Educational Psychologist report dated October 2025 and February 2026, and an Occupational Therapy report of August 2025. These, he considers, provide sufficient evidence that Y’s progress has not been as good as it should have been, and supports his claim for injustice.

Findings

46. My period of investigation is between September 2024 to March 2025.

Complaint (a): Y’s EHC Plan required that he should have a class size fewer than 10 pupils with high staff to pupil ratio. Although the Council recognised that Y’s school did not provide this from September 2024, the Council wrongly considered Y had not suffered any educational detriment.

47. When the Council received Mr X’s complaint about School B’s failure to adhere to Y’s EHC Plan, it promptly investigated those concerns. So, I find no fault in the way the Council dealt with Mr X’s concerns initially.
48. I am also satisfied that the Council checked the information, provided by Mr X, directly with School B and then again sought information from School B when Mr X said the school had provided inaccurate information. School B explained that this had happened due to an administrative error.
49. The Council partially upheld the complaint that, between September 2024 and March 2025, Y’s class size was slightly larger than required and therefore partly upheld Mr X’s complaint about the non-adherence to Y’s EHC Plan. It is not clear exactly when the Council became aware of the non-adherence, and it may be that it was only in March 2025 when Mr X complained directly to the Council. But the Council has partly upheld this complaint and I accept that decision. Accordingly, I find fault.
50. But the key issue is that Mr X considered this meant that Y had not progressed as well as he should have, and the recent professional reports, which he obtained, supported his view. In contrast, the Council’s says School B’s December 2024 school report stated that Y was making progress, and the SEND Tribunal of March 2025 also stated this.
51. The professional reports provided by Mr X are dated after March 2025. Therefore, they cover Y’s lack of progress after the end date of my investigation. Accordingly, while I recognise that Y’s progress may have declined, I cannot take these reports as evidence when assessing any detriment to Y during the period of September 2024 and March 2025.
52. My view is that the SEND Tribunal assessment that Y was making adequate progress is more relevant and the SEND Tribunal would have had a considerable amount of evidence to reach its view. It is therefore reasonable to take note of its conclusions when considering any resulting injustice during the period of September 2024 and March 2025.
53. Moreover, it is not possible for us to make a direct link between the accepted Council’s fault and the claimed injustice. There could be several factors that might have affected Y’s rate of progress during September 2024 and March 2025.
54. Therefore, I find the Council at fault (as it accepted at stage one). But I cannot say Y has suffered educational detriment in the way Mr X has claimed and therefore I do not consider the Council should pay for the past private tuition or make a symbolic payment for the loss of provision.
55. I recognise that Mr X will be left wondering whether strict adherence to Y’s EHC Plan might have provided a better outcome for Y. But I consider an apology is sufficient for this resulting injustice.

Complaint (b): there was a delay by the Council in dealing with his complaint

56. Mr X complained to the Council in mid-March 2025. The Council’s response time is ten working days. Its stage one response was four days overdue because the Council was awaiting to receive information from School B. The Council apologised for this and offered a small symbolic payment.
57. We do not normally recommend a time and trouble payment just for having to complain to a council or to us. But we recognise that mistakes in a council’s complaint process can cause avoidable time and trouble and we may recommend a small symbolic payment for this.
58. I would not have recommended a symbolic payment for the small delay by the Council in responding to Mr X’s complaint. This is because the delay was minor and caused because the Council was waiting for a response from School B. But the Council has and it is now for Mr X to accept this or not.

Action

59. We expect senior officers from councils to make effective, timely and specific apologies for the faults we have identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice.
60. Within one month, the Council will:

• apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance for the faults and injustice identified and also explaining why the Council will not be reimbursing the private tuition costs for the period of September 2024 to March 2025.

61. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
62. Mr X’s concern about events after March 2025 are new complaints and he would need to make a fresh complaint to the Council.

Back to top

Decision

63. I find fault causing Mr X some uncertainty about whether the educational outcome could have been better for Y. But I do not find that any fault caused proven detriment to Y’s progress during September 2024 to March 2025 as claimed by Mr X. I consider an apology is sufficient remedy for the uncertainty.
64. I have therefore completed my investigation and am closing the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman