Summary: Mrs X complains the Council has not dealt properly with her daughter Y’s education causing avoidable distress and missed provision. The Council did not ensure special educational provision was made. Y suffered loss of some special educational provision. The Council should apologise and pay Mrs X a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council has not dealt with her daughter’s education properly because it has failed to ensure that Special Educational Needs provision has been delivered.
2. Mrs X says her daughter has missed special educational needs provision and she has suffered avoidable distress.

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. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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)
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 Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs 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, guidance and policies

9. 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. The EHC Plan is set out in sections.
10. 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). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)
11. 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.

12. The council must decide whether to conduct a reassessment of a child or young person’s EHC Plan if this is requested by the child’s parent, the young person or their educational placement. The council may also decide to complete a reassessment if it thinks one is necessary.

What happened?

13. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
14. Y had an EHC Plan. This was subject to an annual review in January 2025.
15. Mrs X was unhappy with the proposed amendments to Y’s EHC Plan.
16. In March 2025, Mrs X complained that Y had not received all the Special Education Needs (SEN) provision contained in her EHC Plan since September 2024.
17. The Council upheld Mrs X’s complaint that Y’s EHC Plan annual review had not been completed in time, but did not uphold the part of her complaint about Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) provision having been missed.
18. The Council requested further information from Y’s school. When it received this, it amended its complaint decision and upheld Mrs X complaint, but stated that there was no evidence of any adverse impact to Y as a result.
19. In July new SALT and OT reports for Y were completed. Y’s school requested a meeting with the therapists to ensure recommendations were understood and implemented properly. A meeting was also held with Mrs X and Y’s school.
20. Y’s school arranged an EHC Plan annual review which was held in December 2025.

Analysis

21. The Council’s stage 1 complaint response partly upheld Mrs X’s complaint, accepting there was a delay to statutory timescales. I did not uphold her complaint that SALT and OT provision had been missed.
22. However, it said, “We understand that it is our duty to ensure that this provision is in place, and we have contacted the school to gain their insight into what SaLT and OT provision has been delivered from September 2024 until now, and for them to evidence how this has been implemented.”
23. The Council’s stage 2 complaint response said:
• As the school confirmed they would be able to meet Y’s needs, the Council considered it had fulfilled its statutory duty to ensure provision was in place.
• It first became aware of Mrs X’s concerns when she complained.
• It had seen evidence from Y’s school that it had adequate provision to meet her needs.
• It did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint about SALT and OT provision.
24. I have seen a range of email exchanges between the Council and Mrs X, which occurred after the Council issued its stage 2 complaint response. These show:
• The Council received information from Y’s school showing which provision listed in her EHC Plan had been delivered. It accepted that some provision had not been made and some where there had been inconsistency of delivery.
• The Council amended the outcome of its stage 2 complaint response in relation to SALT and OT. It now upheld this part of Mrs X’s complaint.
• However, the Council said there had been no impact to Y of the missed provision and there was evidence of Mrs X refusing support.
• Mrs X disagreed with the Council about the impact to Y and said she had not refused support listed in Y’s EHC Plan.
• The Council accepted there needed to be greater oversight of the process from the start, in respect of gaining evidence from the placement to demonstrate that they can both meet need and that this has been put in place.
• The Council accepted it was at fault because it could not evidence that provision was actually in place. It also accepted that there were gaps in provision.
• The Council asked Y’s school for evidence of support refusal and said, “If there is evidence Mrs X refused support…[it]…cannot make a recommendation for injustice in relation to the gaps in provision, however, if this cannot be substantiated, then I will discuss this matter with the SEND team management to determine the next steps.”
25. I agree with the Council. It is clear the Council did not have a sufficient processes in place to ensure it could be satisfied that Y’s provision was being made. This is fault by the Council. Y suffered missed provision between September 2024 and June 2025, almost an entire school year.
26. I must now consider whether or not the accepted fault caused significant ongoing injustice to Mrs X and Y.
27. The Council’s position is that Y’s school provided notes stating in its consideration there had been no impact to Y due to the missed provision.
28. The Council has provided no further evidence to show Mrs X refused support specifically listed in Y’s EHC Plan.
29. Mrs X provided me with an written explanation of the impact she believed there had been to Y as a result of the Council’s fault. This includes:
• Missing vital education due to not being appropriately supported.
• Y’s education progress has been hindered.
• Lack of support has impacted on Y’s opportunities for social interactions and participation in activities.
30. It is clear from Y’s EHC Plan that she requires a fairly high base level of support.
31. Mrs X acknowledged in an email to the Council that some of the missed provision may not have directly impacted Y.
32. I consider the missed provision is, in itself, an injustice. On the balance of probabilities, this missed provision caused some further negative impacts to Y.

Action by the Council

33. The Council has identified necessary service improvements as a result of Mrs X’s complaint, including:
• Strengthened oversight of Annual Review timelines to prevent delays.
• Ensured direct liaison between the Council, the school and external therapists.
• Implemented earlier and more frequent follow-up meetings where specialist reports identify changes to provision.
• Increased monitoring of how advice feeds into Section F to ensure accurate implementation.
• Improved communication channels with parents so they are included throughout and receive timely updates.

The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies

34. 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:
• The severity of the child’s SEN as set out in their EHC Plan.
• Any educational provision – full time or part time, without some or all of the specified support – that was made during the period.
• 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.

Back to top

Action

35. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council should take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the fault found 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.
• Pay Mrs X £2,700, in respect of Y’s missed provision.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman