Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to provide proper oversight of the special educational needs support being delivered to Mrs X’s daughter. This meant she missed out on support. The Council has already taken action to address her injustice, but it has also agreed to address the injustice suffered by Mrs X, who suffered distress. It will also take steps to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council failed to provide the special educational needs support her daughter, Y, needed in maths lessons. She says Y’s school has now admitted that it cannot deliver the support.
2. Mrs X also complains that the Council took two years to agree the right support for Y, and did not do so until instructed by the SEND Tribunal.
3. Mrs X says these matters have caused Y to miss 21 months of special educational needs support, which, in turn, has led to academic regression. She also says Y has suffered distress.

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. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to agree the right support for Y over a long period. She appealed the Council’s decision on Y’s support to the Tribunal, which means it is outside our jurisdiction.
9. I have, however, investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the delivery of Y’s special educational needs support in maths lessons.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law.
11. 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

The law

12. 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. (Children and Families Act 2014, section 37)
13. Councils have a duty to make sure children receive the provision set out in section F of their EHC plans. (Children and Families Act 2014, Section 42)
14. The duty to arrange this provision is non-delegable. This means if a council asks another organisation to deliver 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)

What happened

15. The Council issued an EHC plan for Y in November 2024, following a Tribunal hearing. The plan said Y would receive:

1:1 maths intervention for 1 hour each week to be taught by a teacher trained in dyscalculia who will devise an individualised programme to be delivered by a dedicated named teaching assistant in all maths lessons.

16. Later in the month, Mrs X contacted the Council to say that Y was not getting her one-to-one maths support. The Council says it contacted the school to query this, and “The information we were given initially satisfied us that the provision was in place and an adult was being secured” (although I have not seen this information).
17. The Council also Mrs X that she could request a new school through the EHC plan annual review process if Y’s current school could not deliver the right support.
18. Mrs X says that, over the early part of 2025, she repeatedly contacted the Council and Y’s school to report that Y was not getting the right maths support. She says that, by May, the school had admitted that it could not deliver the support.
19. The Council then, in response to a query from Mrs X’s local councillor, said it had just found out Y was not getting her teaching assistant support in maths lessons (although she was getting the other intervention for an hour a week). It said it was working with the school to resolve this shortfall.
20. Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council. She said that, despite her frequent reports about Y’s missing support, the Council had not acted, and consequently Y had not received the right support in maths lessons since November.
21. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint and accepted that, despite what Y’s school had said in late 2024, it not been delivering some of her special educational needs support. It also acknowledged that “establishing what has and has not been delivered has been a protracted process that has caused you significant frustration and distress”. It apologised for “the distress and frustration this has caused to both you and [Y] and the effect this has had on her confidence, wellbeing and progress”.
22. The Council said it was commissioning maths tuition for Y, and would deliver extra sessions to make up for the support which had been missed. This tuition would continue until the end of Y’s GCSE year in 2025/26. The Council said this was a suitable remedy for Y’s injustice, because Y’s school had confirmed that she was already on track to achieve her predicted grade.
23. The Council also said that, when concerns are raised about the delivery of support in future, it would expect schools to provide more evidence.
24. In July, the Council issued an amended EHC plan for Y. This confirmed that the Council would pay for two weekly hours of maths tuition. However, the plan still requires Y’s school to provide teaching assistant support in all maths lessons.
25. Y’s school says Y has been receiving one-to-one teaching assistant support in maths lessons throughout the 2025/6 academic year.
26. Mrs X tells us:
• Contrary to the Council’s claim that Y is ‘on track’, she actually only got a grade 1 in her maths mock GCSE, which is well short of the grade she will need for a college course.
• The Council’s claim, therefore, is “inaccurate and misleading”.
• Y’s maths tutor “has confirmed it is now very unlikely that [Y] will achieve the required grade in time, despite her best efforts”.

My findings

27. The Council has already accepted that it was at fault for failing to provide the special educational needs support Y needed in maths lessons between November 2024 (the date of her EHC plan) and June 2025 (the date of the Council’s final complaint response).
28. The Council has also accepted that it took too long to work out whether Y was getting the support she needed.
29. With this in mind, there is no reason for me to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about that period in greater detail. Such an investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
30. I have, however, considered whether the remedial action the Council has taken properly recognises Y’s injustice.
31. The Council arranged an extra hour of maths tuition for Y, which, in its view, made up for the support she missed throughout much of the 2024/25 academic year, and would ensure she meets her targets.
32. It is not for me to say whether this tuition will lead to an improvement in Y’s grades, or whether those grades will then be as good as they would have been had Y received the right special educational needs support in the first place. The Council’s offer is, however, a fair attempt to remedy Y’s injustice from missed support in 2024/25. I will not criticise it.
33. Y has also received the right teaching assistant support in maths lessons during the current academic year. So I will not recommend any further remedy for Y’s injustice.
34. However, this process caused Mrs X some distress (which the Council has acknowledged). She had to bring this issue to the Council’s attention repeatedly, and it is plausible that, had she not done so, Y would not have been given any remedial support (or this may have been delayed). The Council should take further action to recognise Mrs X’s injustice.
35. The Council told Mrs X that it would change its approach for overseeing the delivery of special educational needs support and would expect more from schools in future. It should provide evidence that it has made the changes needed to improve its service.

Back to top

Action

36. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to provide Mrs X with a symbolic payment of £300 to recognise her distress from its prolonged failure to arrange Y’s special educational needs support.
37. Within eight weeks, the Council has agreed to write to us with a plan which demonstrates the action it has taken, or will take, to improve its oversight of the delivery of special educational needs support.
38. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things.

Back to top

Decision

39. The Council was at fault. This caused Y an injustice, which the Council has already remedied. Mrs X was also caused an injustice, which the Council will now take action to address. It will also take steps to improve its service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman