Summary: The Council’s different departments failed to work collaboratively to plan for Ms Y’s transition to adult care services from an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council failed to consider an interim review of Ms Y’s EHC Plan and to ensure it met her eligible care needs. It also failed to properly respond to Ms Y’s parents’ (Mr and Mrs X) complaint. This caused Ms Y distress and uncertainty and Mr and Mrs X time and trouble pursuing the matter. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms Y and Mr and Mrs X, and carry out a review that considers both Ms Y’s education and social care needs.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs X complained on behalf of their adult child, Ms Y. They complained the Council failed to act following the end of the placement specified in Ms Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, resulting in her missing out on a further placement providing training and employment support. Mr and Mrs X say the Council’s education and adult social care directorates refused to take responsibility for meeting Ms Y’s needs and this severely impacted her mental wellbeing and future life chances. They want the Council to apologise, compensate Ms Y and urgently review her needs to allow her to take up the placement and receive appropriate training and employment support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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 considered

5. 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.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. Ms Y’s complaint is about the Council’s decision not to fund a placement at an employment support provider, the Provider. The Provider was not offering an educational placement and is not an institution approved by the Secretary of State under section 41 of the Children and Families Act 2014.
8. I have decided to investigate Ms Y’s complaint as the Provider could not be named in her EHC Plan so she could not appeal the Council’s decision not to name the provider to the Tribunal. I also do not consider it reasonable for Ms Y to have appealed the social care elements of her EHC Plan due to prolonged confusion over whether the Council’s SEN or adult social care team were responsible for meeting Ms Y’s needs.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr and Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr and Mrs X and the Council have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans

11. 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. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 
12. 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.
13. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. 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 cease to maintain the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 

Adult Social Care

14. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
15. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.
16. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.

Transition Planning

17. Both the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Care Act 2014 require councils to involve young people and their families in making decisions about their future care and support. This includes decisions about the most appropriate time to make the transition to adult services. The Council should set out how the transition will happen, who is involved and what support will be provided to make the transition as seamless as possible.
18. Councils must carry out an adult care transition assessment where there is significant benefit to a young person or their carer and they are likely to have needs for care or support after turning 18. There is no set age for carrying out transition assessments, but they must take place at the right time for the individual. (16.7-16.8 Care and Support Statutory Guidance )

Background

19. In July 2023 Ms Y was entering the final year of an internship at a local college. The Council issued an amended EHC Plan on 25 July 2023 continuing to name the college and specifying Ms Y’s special educational provision for the coming year. The EHC Plan said Ms Y had no social care needs.
20. At around the same time the Council received a referral for an adult social care assessment for Ms Y. Social worker A from the Council’s adult social care team carried out a review. They identified Ms Y needed support with most daily living tasks but was reluctant to use a personal assistant. Social worker A signposted Ms Y to local services in the community. Ms Y’s mother Mrs X said she did not feel these were suitable for Ms Y, who was keen on classes such as baking. Social worker A said this would be for its Special Educational Needs (SEN) team to arrange through Ms Y’s EHC Plan.

What happened

21. Mrs X contacted social worker A in March 2024 to ask about Ms Y progressing to a placement with the Provider after she completed her internship. Social worker A did not respond to Mrs X’s email.
22. Mrs X chased the Council for a reply again in May 2024. She said Y’s annual review was coming up and Ms Y wanted to go to the Provider from September 2024. Social worker A replied saying it was for the Council’s SEN team to make the application. They said arranging the placement was “not something we would be involved in”. They copied officer B, an EHC Plan coordinator from the Council’s SEN team, into their reply.
23. In early June 2024 a manager from the Provider emailed social worker A and officer B. They reiterated that Ms Y wanted to start there in September 2024 and what the organisation did. They said that even though they were out of the Council’s area, they could provide employment support funded by the Council and had done so in the past.
24. Social worker A replied saying they had not received any request from Mrs X for a placement with the Provider. They said they had previously discussed support options with Ms Y and she had not been interested in a day facility. They said Ms Y had wanted to explore a paid cookery course, but this would be for “your team” to support as it was not a social care need. They said, “we don’t purchase these courses”. Social worker A again copied in officer B to their reply.
25. The Provider responded immediately clarifying they were not a day facility and had extensive experience in supporting young people with SEN into employment. They said Ms Y could not find any similar services in the Council’s local area.
26. Y’s annual review took place on 4 June 2024. Mrs X continued to chase the Council for a response on Ms Y attending the Provider. Officer B then contacted Mrs X asking for Y’s views on their next steps after college. Mrs X said Ms Y wanted to go to the Provider.
27. Ms Y formally completed their college placement in July 2024. A case note from the Council at this time indicates no further action was required by its adult social care team as it had signposted Ms Y to services in the community. In August 2024 Mrs X chased the Council again. The Council said the case was closed to adult social care and apologised Mrs X had not been told. Mrs X replied saying she urgently needed the Council to provide options for Ms Y. She told the Council she had been repeatedly passed between its adult social care and SEN teams.
28. In mid-August 2024 the manager from the Provider emailed the Council again explaining their service. They emphasised the negative impact the situation was having on Ms Y. The Council issued its decision following Ms Y’s annual review on 23 August 2024. It decided not to amend Ms Y’s EHC Plan. Ms Y’s placement remained the college and the EHC Plan said Y had no social care needs.
29. Mrs X continued to chase the Council for an update. A new social worker, social worker C, contacted Mrs X at the end of August 2024. They spoke to Mrs X and said they would liaise with the Provider and the Council’s SEN team and present options to the Council’s funding panel. Social worker C contacted officer B who said the Council’s SEN team had not made a request for an educational placement with the Provider. Social worker C told Mrs X she needed to make an application to the SEN team for a placement at the Provider.
30. On the same day the Council’s SEN team told Mrs X that the Provider did not offer an educational pathway so any placement would be funded by adult social care. The SEN team also informed the Council’s adult social care team of this. They said there was no local equivalent of the Provider and urged the social care team to make a decision. Social worker C said they were preparing a request for the Council’s funding panel.
31. Social worker C visited Ms Y in September 2024 to carry out an adult social care needs assessment. Mrs X chased an outcome in early October 2024. Social worker C said they felt it was unlikely the Council would approve a placement at the Provider and Mrs X may wish to explore other options. Mr and Mrs X told the Council they were unhappy the request had never been presented to its panel.
32. Mr and Mrs X began to explore other courses, such as a teaching assistant course. However, the Council said it needed to cease Y’s EHC Plan for Ms Y to apply as it was not a funded course. The Provider continued to email the Council explaining the impact on Ms Y. It reiterated it had other participants funded by the Council’s adult social care directorate.
33. The Council held a meeting of its SEN team and adult social care team in early November 2024. Mrs X explained how Ms Y had been passed between teams with no decision. The Council agreed to explore other options for Ms Y, however none of these proved viable. Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council on 26 November 2024. They said Ms Y had been left in limbo and the Council was making it more difficult for her to enter employment.
34. The Council finalised its adult social care assessment of Ms Y on 9 December 2024. It identified several eligible care needs for Ms Y, including a need for support to access and engage with work, training, education or volunteering. The Council’s records make no reference to how it intended to meet Ms Y’s eligible care needs but it proposed Ms Y receive support to access the community from a personal assistant for 10 hours a week. Following discussions over Ms Y’s financial assessment, Mr and Mrs X decided Ms Y would self-fund this support.
35. The Council’s SEN team responded to Mrs X’s complaint on the 20 December 2024. It said the placement at the Provider was a social care placement. It said it had told adult social care this in June 2024, but its adult social care team had not told Mrs X until August 2024. It said its social care team had told Mrs X it would not fund a placement with the Provider. It said it had explored other options, including ceasing Y’s EHC Plan, but Mrs X wanted the EHC Plan to remain in place. It said Ms Y needed to identify an appropriate educational course or it would have to cease the EHC Plan. Mr and Mrs X remained unhappy and asked the Council to escalate their complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint procedure.
36. The Council’s adult social care team responded to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint on 14 January 2025. It said its responsibility was to meet Ms Y’s eligible care needs and it needed to do that in the most effective way. It said it could not consider the Provider as it did not consider this was the best use of its resources. Mrs X responded saying she was happy to consider local alternatives but did not believe there were any similar local options available for Ms Y. The Council closed Ms Y’s adult social care case in February 2025, noting there were no outstanding tasks.
37. Mr and Mrs X continued to raise concerns with the Council’s social care team that the request for a placement at the Provider had never been put to its funding panel. The Council responded to Mr and Mrs X’s stage two complaint on 18 June 2025. It apologised for the delay and also accepted issuing two stage one responses had been confusing. It said the Provider had confirmed it could not offer an educational placement. It offered Mr and Mrs X £250 to recognise the impact of its delayed complaint response. Mr and Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
38. Following their complaint Mr and Mrs X re-engaged with the Council over options for Y. The Council carried out another annual review of Y’s EHC Plan in July 2025 and decided to amend the EHC Plan. It issued an amended EHC Plan in September 2025 naming the same college Ms Y had completed their first course in. Ms Y began a new course at the college in September 2025. The EHC Plan said Ms Y had no social care needs.
39. In response to our enquiries the Council said the college could continue to meet Y’s needs when it decided not to amend the EHC Plan in 2024. It said while Mr and Mrs X explored options with the Provider throughout the 2024/25 academic year it considered they had made alternative arrangements for Y.

My findings

Transition planning, joint working and communication

40. The Council was under a duty to plan Ms Y’s transition to adult care services through joint working between its SEN and adult social care teams. Throughout the period I have investigated there is little evidence of such planning and collaboration. Mr and Mrs X and Ms Y were repeatedly met with responses that passed the responsibility to other teams. Officers handed over this responsibility through copying in colleagues to replies rather than any collaborative transition planning as set out in the Care and Support Statutory Guidance and the SEN Code of Practice. This was fault and lead to a disjointed approach to securing the provision in Ms Y’s EHC Plan, meeting her eligible care needs and responding to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint.

Ms Y’s annual review and EHC Plan

41. The Council carried out an annual review of Ms Y’s EHC Plan on 4 June 2024. The Council decided not to amend Ms Y’s EHC Plan and so had four weeks to issue its decision. The Council did not issue its decision not to amend the EHC Plan until 23 August 2024, a delay of seven weeks. This was fault and caused Ms Y uncertainty over the provision in her EHC Plan.
42. While Ms Y had a preference to start a placement with the Provider in September 2024, this was not an educational placement and could not be named in Ms Y’s EHC Plan. In the absence of any transition planning, the Council’s SEN team was entitled to refer the matter to its adult social care team and maintain an educational setting that if felt best met Ms Y’s educational needs following the annual review. The Council was not at fault.
43. Having not amended Ms Y’s EHC Plan the Council was under a duty to secure the provision in the EHC Plan. Throughout the 2024/25 academic year Ms Y and her family expressed a preference for the placement at the Provision. During this time an educational pathway at the college remained available to Ms Y. While Ms Y did not want to pursue this at the time, I am satisfied the Council secured the provision as specified in Ms Y’s EHC Plan.
44. In early 2025 it became clear Ms Y would not be starting at the Provision and was also not accessing the provision in her EHC Plan. At this point the Council should have considered an interim review of Ms Y’s EHC Plan. The Council failed to do this. Due to the ongoing uncertainty over Ms Y’s transition planning, I cannot say what the outcome of this review would have been, but the Council’s failure to do so caused Ms Y further uncertainty over what provision she was entitled to.

Ms Y’s social care needs and care planning

45. The Council carried out a review of Ms Y’s care needs in September 2024 and identified eligible care needs, including support accessing education and employment. Having identified eligible care needs the Council had a duty to involve Ms Y in its care planning, considering any personal preference before deciding how best to meet Ms Y’s needs.
46. There is no evidence of any care planning for Ms Y, or consideration of her views. This was fault. The Council’s assessment identified specific areas Ms Y struggles with but does not say how it will meet those needs. The Council’s case notes suggest it decided a personal assistant to access the community could meet Ms Y’s needs but there is no explanation of how this would allow Ms Y to access education or employment. While Mr and Mrs X eventually decided to self-fund Ms Y’s care, the Council should have still satisfied itself all of Ms Y’s eligible care needs were met.
47. The Council would have been entitled to pursue options other than a placement at the Provider. However, there is no evidence this placement was given proper consideration. The Council said the placement was unlikely to be approved by its funding panel but has not provided any evidence to justify that view and how else it intended to support Ms Y to access education and employment. This was fault and caused Ms Y further uncertainty over how her eligible care needs would be met.

The Council’s complaint handling

48. The lack of joint working between the Council’s SEN and adult social care teams is also evident in the Council’s responses to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint. The Council should have provided a single joined up response to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint but instead issued two separate complaint responses which suggested each other were responsible for the issues Ms Y had encountered. This was fault and caused Mr and Mrs X further uncertainty and time and trouble pursuing the complaint.

Injustice to Ms Y

49. The impact of the Council’s failings is seen in both Ms Y’s EHC Plans. The EHC Plans make no reference to a transition to adult care services, with the social care sections left blank while the Council carried out separate adult care assessments that identified eligible care needs. Had the Council’s SEN and adult social care teams worked more collaboratively I am satisfied they would have provided a coherent joined up approach to planning Ms Y’s transition that best met her needs. Instead, Ms Y and Mr and Mrs X faced a year of avoidance and indecision from the Council at a time when Ms Y was motivated to pursue education and employment opportunities.
50. It is not for the Ombudsman to say whether Ms Y’s needs are best met with a placement at the Provider, but the failures identified in my investigation caused Ms Y prolonged distress and uncertainty over her future and caused Mr and Mrs X time and trouble repeatedly pursuing the matter.

Back to top

Action

51. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms Y and Mr and Mrs X for the distress, uncertainty and time and trouble caused by the failings identified in this case. 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.
2. Pay Ms Y £500 to recognise the distress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s failure to properly plan her transition to adult care services, failure to carry out an interim EHC Plan and failure to plan how to meet her eligible care needs.
3. Pay Mr and Mrs X £500 to recognise the time and trouble they have faced pursuing the Council on behalf of Ms Y.
4. Carry out an interim review of Ms Y’s EHC Plan that includes a review of Ms Y’s social care needs and how the Council proposes to meet those needs. This should include proper consideration of Ms Y attending the Provider.
52. Within three months of the final decision the Council has agreed to review its approach to planning transitions to adult care services for young people with an EHC Plan. The Council should create an action plan identifying how its adult social care and SEN teams will work together to ensure transitions are properly planned and implemented as set out in the SEN Code of Practice and Care and Support Statutory Guidance.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

54. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman