Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education and special educational provision for Y, delayed reviewing and amending his EHC Plan, failed to secure a suitable school placement, and communicated poorly. We found fault causing injustice. Y lost educational opportunity and Miss X experienced distress, uncertainty, delayed appeal rights, and avoidable time and trouble. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has not provided a suitable educational provision for her child, Y, who has SEN. Miss X also complains the Council has delayed carrying out an EHC Plan review and communicated poorly. Miss X would like the Council to ensure provision is urgently provided to Y, communication improved, and a suitable placement sourced.

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 the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss 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

Relevant law and guidance

Education Health and Care Plans

7. A child with special educational needs may have an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
8. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in their 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)  

Alternative provision

9. Councils must “make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.” (Education Act 1996, section 19(1))
10. The statutory guidance says the duty to provide a suitable education applies “to all children of compulsory school age resident in the council area, whether or not they are on the roll of a school, and whatever type of school they attend”.
11. Suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have. (Education Act 1996, section 19(6))
12. The education provided by the council must be full-time unless the council determines that full-time education would not be in the child’s best interests for reasons of the child’s physical or mental health.
13. The law does not define full-time education but children with health needs should have provision which is equivalent to the education they would receive in school. If they receive one-to-one tuition, for example, the hours of face-to-face provision could be fewer as the provision is more concentrated. (Statutory guidance, ‘Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs’)

Back to top

What happened

14. I have included a summary of some of the key events in this complaint. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
15. Y has special educational needs and an Education, Health and Care Plan. He attended primary school until July 2023 and was due to transfer to secondary education in September 2023.
16. During 2023, Miss X’s housing circumstances and proposed address changed. She also reconsidered her preferred school for Y. The Council consulted several mainstream schools. The schools raised concerns about their ability to meet Y’s needs.
17. In October 2023, the Council decided to name School A in Y’s EHC Plan. It offered the school additional funding to support Y. The Council issued a final amended EHC Plan naming School A in December 2023.
18. School A maintained it could not admit Y until it had recruited appropriate staff and created a suitable space for him. Y was placed on the school’s roll but did not attend.
19. The Council sought alternative education while discussions about Y’s school placement continued. It received offers of online and face-to-face provision in February 2024. Miss X agreed Y should attend Alternative Provider A.
20. Alternative Provider A began providing Y with 15 hours of education each week. In June 2024, Miss X told the Council Y was happy with the provision and asked it to consider his longer-term educational arrangements.
21. Y was removed from School A’s roll at the end of May 2024. Alternative Provider A continued to provide his education.
22. The Council intended to review Y’s EHC Plan in December 2024. The review did not take place because the responsible officer was absent from work.
23. Miss X complained to the Council in January 2025 about the lack of progress and communication. The Council responded in February 2025.
24. In March 2025, the Council agreed to continue funding Alternative Provider A. An annual review of Y’s EHC Plan took place in mid-March. The review recorded that Y was engaging with the provision. It also recorded Miss X’s view that the Council should consider specialist education and that work had begun to identify an appropriate school.
25. In May, Miss X made a further complaint. She said Y remained without a school placement and Alternative Provider A had initially been intended as an interim arrangement.
26. In mid-May, the Council told Miss X it had decided to amend Y’s EHC Plan. It did not issue a draft amended Plan at that time.
27. The Council submitted Y’s case to its decision-making Panel in June. It asked the Panel to agree that specialist provision was appropriate. The Panel deferred its decision and requested further information about Y’s current needs and progress. It agreed that Alternative Provider A should continue for a further term.
28. In July, a Council family worker met Y and Miss X. Y said he wanted to study English and mathematics but did not want tuition at home because he believed he would become distracted. He considered a library would be a more suitable location. He also said he remained interested in returning to a mainstream school.
29. Later that month, the Panel agreed to extend Alternative Provider A for the autumn term. The Council continued to fund 15 hours of provision each week.
30. An annual review meeting took place in early October. Miss X asked the Council to consult School B, an independent specialist school.
31. The Council sent a consultation to School B later in October. The available records do not show that the Council secured a placement for Y following that consultation.
32. Toward the end of October, the Council paid Miss X £2,400 following its consideration of her complaint. This comprised £1,000 for its failure to pursue a school placement following the March annual review, £900 for the delay in amending Y’s EHC Plan and £500 for poor communication and service.
33. The Panel considered Y’s case again in November. It did not agree that specialist provision was appropriate. It approved an additional nine hours of education each week from Alternative Provider B.
34. Alternative Provider B began providing three sessions of three hours each week in December. This was in addition to the 15 hours provided by Alternative Provider A.
35. By January 2026, Y remained without a school placement. The Council had also not issued either a draft or final amended EHC Plan following its decision of May 2025.
36. At the time of the Council’s response to my enquiries in February 2026, Y was receiving 15 hours a week from Alternative Provider A and nine hours a week from Alternative Provider B. The Council was considering how to support his return to a school setting.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

37. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to the Council. Of note it said:
• Alternative Provider A had originally been commissioned as an interim arrangement while it searched for a school. It had continued the placement because it had not identified a suitable school and because Y’s anxiety affected the education he could manage.
• It accepted there had been delays and gaps in seeking a suitable school placement for Y. It said changes in Miss X’s preferred schools and changes of address had contributed to the difficulties, but accepted these did not account for all the delay.
• It accepted it did not take the required action after the March 2025 annual review and subsequent Panel consideration. In particular, it did not consult further mainstream schools as a contingency.
• It accepted it failed to issue a draft or final amended EHC Plan after telling Miss X in May 2025 that it would amend the Plan. It said long-term staff absence contributed to this, but it should have put arrangements in place so Y’s case continued to progress.
• It accepted its communication with Miss X had not been regular or effective and said it had apologised.
• It considered the 15 hours provided by Alternative Provider A amounted to suitable education during some of the relevant period because of Y’s needs and anxiety. It said the later addition of Alternative Provider B was intended to assess Y’s attainment and prepare him to return to school.
• It said no school placement had been secured. It had not agreed Y required specialist provision and intended to consult mainstream schools while continuing to consider Miss X’s preference for School B.
• It had already paid Miss X £2,400. Following my enquiries, it reviewed the remedy and proposed increasing it to a total of £4,000. This comprised £1,000 for the lost opportunity to seek and secure a school placement following the March 2025 review and £3,000 for the delay and poor service from May 2025, including its failure to amend Y’s EHC Plan.

Back to top

Analysis

Alternative education provision

38. Councils must arrange suitable education for children of compulsory school age who cannot attend school because of illness, exclusion or otherwise. The education should normally be full-time. However, councils may arrange part-time education where they consider full-time education would not be in the child’s best interests because of their physical or mental health. The education provided must be suitable for the child’s age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs.
39. The law does not define the number of hours that amount to full-time education. The relevant consideration is whether the provision is suitable and sufficient for the individual child. A Council should consider the child’s circumstances, the content of the provision, and the amount of education they are able to access. It should keep any reduced package under review.
40. Y received 15 hours a week from Alternative Provider A throughout the period I have investigated. The provision included practical and outdoor activities, work on Y’s communication and emotional regulation, and some literacy and numeracy. The provider’s records show Y generally attended and developed positive relationships with staff. He took part in individual and group activities and, at times, completed reading, writing and mathematics work.
41. The provider adapted activities to maintain Y’s engagement, including teaching numeracy through physical and practical activities. There were also occasions when Y struggled to work alongside other young people or to engage in more formal learning.
42. Alternative Provider A was initially commissioned as an interim arrangement while the Council sought a school placement. However, Y engaged with the provision and Miss X asked the Council to continue it in September 2024 because he was happy there. The Council subsequently reviewed and extended the placement through its Panel. The March 2025 annual review recorded that Y was attending and engaging, and the Council received regular information from the provider about his progress and needs.
43. I recognise that 15 hours was considerably less than the time Y would ordinarily have spent in school. However, the evidence does not show that Y could have managed a conventional full-time timetable during this period. The records show the Council considered his anxiety, his ability to engage and the benefit he was receiving from the placement when it continued the provision. Miss X also supported the provision continuing while longer-term arrangements were considered.
44. In response to my draft decision, Miss X said the provision did not offer a sufficiently broad academic curriculum, that Y was not taught by a qualified teacher and that he missed subjects, peer contact and opportunities he would ordinarily have received in school. I recognise those concerns. Alternative provision does not necessarily need to replicate a conventional school timetable or curriculum in every respect. The question is whether it was suitable for Y’s age, ability, aptitude and special educational needs, taking account of the provision he could reasonably engage with at the time.
45. In November 2025, the Council agreed an additional nine hours a week of tuition through Alternative Provider B. This increased Y’s package to 24 hours a week from December. The additional tuition was intended to increase his academic education, establish his current attainment and support a possible return to school.
46. On balance, I do not find sufficient evidence that the Council was at fault in deciding to provide 15 hours a week through Alternative Provider A before December 2025. The records show the package was personalised, adapted to Y’s anxiety and ability to engage, and reviewed through provider updates, the annual review process and Panel consideration. Y generally attended, developed positive relationships with staff and received some literacy, numeracy, practical learning and emotional support. Miss X also supported the provision continuing while longer-term arrangements were considered.
47. However, this finding concerns the alternative education package itself. It does not mean the Council could rely on Alternative Provider A indefinitely instead of taking timely action to secure a suitable school placement. I consider the Council’s efforts to secure a placement separately below. It also does not determine whether the Council secured all the special educational provision specified in Y’s EHC Plan, which I consider in the next section.

Delivery of the special educational provision in Y’s EHC Plan

48. The Council has a duty to secure the special educational provision specified in Section F of a child’s EHC Plan. This duty remains with the Council where a child is educated outside school through alternative provision. Arranging some suitable education under section 19 does not, by itself, demonstrate the Council has secured all the provision in the EHC Plan.
49. Y’s final EHC Plan specified a substantial package of support. This included a structured environment, consistent support from trained staff, individual or small-group assistance, differentiated and multi-sensory teaching, targeted literacy and numeracy work, pre-teaching, sensory support, emotional regulation work, social communication interventions and access to a quiet space. It also required advice or intervention from specialist services where appropriate.
50. Alternative Provider A offered Y a personalised programme in a small and supportive environment. Its records show staff developed positive relationships with him and adapted activities to his interests and ability to engage. The provision included practical learning, literacy and numeracy activities, emotional support, relationship building and work intended to improve Y’s confidence and independence. Some elements of this were consistent with the approach described in his EHC Plan.
51. However, the evidence does not show the Council systematically considered each part of Section F and established how it would be delivered while Y was attending Alternative Provider A. I have not seen a provision map or other assessment comparing the alternative package against the provision in the Plan. Nor is there clear evidence that the Council identified which elements could not be delivered, considered how those gaps would be addressed, or reviewed whether additional specialist input was required.
52. The Council continued to rely on Alternative Provider A for a prolonged period. It did so even though the placement had initially been intended as an interim arrangement and Y did not have access to the wider staffing, curriculum and peer environment anticipated by the EHC Plan. The provider’s updates gave the Council information about Y’s attendance and progress, but these did not remove the need for the Council to satisfy itself that the specified provision was being secured.
53. The later decision to add tuition from Alternative Provider B indicates the Council recognised a need to strengthen Y’s academic provision and establish his current levels of attainment. That additional provision did not begin until December 2025. The records do not show why the Council considered the existing package sufficient to deliver Y’s Section F provision before then, or why further academic support was not introduced earlier.
54. I therefore find fault in the Council’s failure to demonstrate that it secured all the special educational provision in Y’s EHC Plan while he was educated through alternative provision. The evidence shows Y received useful and beneficial support, so I cannot conclude he received none of the provision required by his Plan. However, the absence of a clear assessment and monitoring process creates uncertainty about what provision he missed and whether earlier additional support would have improved his education and progress.
55. This fault caused Y a loss of opportunity to receive the full package of provision assessed as necessary for him. It also caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty about whether the alternative arrangements were meeting his identified special educational needs. The extent of the injustice should be considered alongside the Council’s delay in securing a school placement and its proposed financial remedy.

Efforts to secure a suitable school placement

56. The Council remained responsible for taking timely and effective action to identify a school placement capable of meeting Y’s needs. Alternative provision could be used while it did so, but it was not a substitute for progressing longer-term arrangements.
57. The records show the Council consulted several mainstream schools during 2023 and early 2024. Those schools raised concerns about whether they could meet Y’s needs. The Council named School A in Y’s EHC Plan and offered additional funding, but Y did not attend. School A continued to say it could not admit him without further staffing and adaptations. Y was removed from its roll in May 2024.
58. After that, Alternative Provider A continued as Y’s education. The Council knew this had initially been arranged as an interim measure. Miss X’s support for the provision continuing did not remove the need for the Council to keep searching for a suitable school placement.
59. The March 2025 annual review recorded that work had begun to identify an appropriate setting and that Miss X wanted specialist provision considered. In June 2025, the Council asked its Panel to agree Y was suitable for specialist provision. The Panel deferred the request and asked for further information. It also indicated the provision in Y’s EHC Plan might be deliverable in mainstream education with additional funding.
60. The Council should then have acted promptly on the Panel’s decision. This should have included obtaining the further information requested, progressing consultations and keeping both mainstream and specialist options under active consideration. The evidence does not show it did so.
61. The Council considered Y’s case again in July 2025. Its records note Y remained interested in returning to mainstream education. However, there is no evidence the Council carried out a coordinated consultation exercise at that point or identified a clear plan and timescale for securing a placement.
62. Miss X identified School B as her preferred setting at the October 2025 annual review. The Council consulted the school later that month. However, no placement was secured. In November, Panel declined to agree specialist provision and approved additional alternative education instead.
63. Once Panel declined specialist provision, the Council should have progressed mainstream consultations without delay. It did not do so. In its response to my enquiries, it accepted it had not consulted mainstream settings as a contingency and said this was fault. It proposed to issue initial consultations by 13 February 2026.
64. The Council says changes in Miss X’s preferences and address contributed to the difficulty in securing a placement. I accept these matters complicated the position, particularly during the earlier period. However, they do not explain the lack of timely action after the March 2025 annual review or the later Panel decisions. By then, the Council had sufficient information to progress consultations and establish a clear placement strategy.
65. I therefore find fault in the Council’s failure to take timely and coordinated action to secure a suitable school placement for Y from March 2025 onwards. This fault caused Y a prolonged loss of opportunity to return to a school setting. It also left Miss X uncertain about whether and when a placement would be found.
66. I cannot say, on balance, that Y would definitely have secured a school place earlier but for the fault. Schools had already raised concerns about meeting his needs, and Panel had not agreed specialist provision. However, the Council’s inaction meant possible placements were not explored when they should have been. The resulting injustice is therefore best characterised as a significant lost opportunity and prolonged uncertainty.

Annual review and delay in amending the EHC Plan

67. Councils must review an EHC Plan at least every 12 months. Following an annual review meeting, the council must decide whether to maintain, amend or cease the Plan and notify the parent of its decision within four weeks. Where it decides to amend, it should then issue the proposed amendments and complete the amendment process without delay.
68. Y’s annual review was due in December 2024. The Council arranged a review, but it did not take place because the responsible officer was absent from work. There is no evidence the Council reassigned the case or made alternative arrangements to ensure the review proceeded.
69. The annual review eventually took place on 18 March 2025, around three months after it was due. The review considered Y’s progress at Alternative Provider A, his continuing absence from school and the need to identify a suitable longer-term placement.
70. In mid-May 2025, the Council told Miss X it had decided to amend Y’s EHC Plan. This was more than four weeks after the annual review meeting. The Council therefore delayed in notifying Miss X of its decision.
71. More significantly, the Council did not then issue a draft amended Plan. Nor did it issue a final amended Plan. At the time it responded to my enquiries in February 2026, almost nine months after its decision to amend, the amendment process remained incomplete.
72. The Council accepts this was fault. It says long-term staff absence contributed to the delay, but it also accepts it should have put arrangements in place to ensure Y’s case continued to progress. Staff absence does not remove the Council’s statutory responsibilities.
73. The delay had practical consequences. Y’s EHC Plan was not updated to reflect his current needs, the alternative education he was receiving or the Council’s developing view about the type of school placement he required. This meant the Council, Miss X and prospective schools were working from an outdated Plan while considering Y’s future education. The failure to issue an amended Plan therefore hindered the placement process because prospective schools did not have an up-to-date statutory description of Y’s needs and required provision.
74. I cannot conclude the outdated EHC Plan was the sole reason no placement was secured. Schools had previously raised concerns about whether they could meet Y’s needs, and the Council’s Panel had not agreed he required specialist provision. However, on balance, the failure to issue an updated Plan reduced the opportunity for timely and properly informed consultations and compounded the injustice caused by the Council’s failure to progress the placement search.
75. The failure to issue a final amended Plan also delayed Miss X’s right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Until the Council completed the amendment process and issued a final Plan, Miss X could not appeal against the description of Y’s needs, the provision specified for him or the type or name of placement.
76. I therefore find fault in:
• failing to ensure the annual review took place when due;
• delaying the decision following the March 2025 review; and
• failing to issue a draft and final amended EHC Plan after deciding to amend it.
77. These faults caused Miss X prolonged uncertainty, frustration and avoidable time and trouble. They also delayed her appeal rights. Y was caused uncertainty because decisions about his future provision and placement were not made on the basis of an up-to-date EHC Plan. Y was also caused a further loss of opportunity because prospective placements were not considering his needs and provision on the basis of an up-to-date Plan.

Communication and complaint handling

78. Councils should communicate clearly, accurately and within reasonable timescales. Where a parent is trying to understand what education is being arranged for a child with an EHC Plan, the council should provide regular updates and explain what action it is taking.
79. Miss X complained repeatedly about the lack of progress in securing a school placement and the limited information she received from the SEND service. The records show there were periods when she contacted the Council for updates and did not receive a timely or substantive response.
80. The Council considered complaints from Miss X in January, May and September 2025. Its responses acknowledged concerns about delay, communication and the lack of progress in securing a placement. However, the evidence shows the underlying problems continued after those complaint responses. In particular, the Council still did not complete the EHC Plan amendment process or progress school consultations promptly.
81. A complaints process should do more than identify fault. It should also lead to effective action to prevent the injustice continuing. Although the Council apologised and offered a financial remedy, it did not ensure the agreed and necessary actions were completed. This reduced the practical value of its complaint responses and caused Miss X further frustration.
82. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted it had failed to communicate regularly or effectively with Miss X. It said there were no further communications recorded beyond those it disclosed. It also accepted this failure amounted to fault.
83. I agree. The Council’s communication was not sufficiently consistent or proactive. Miss X was left to chase for information about the annual review, school consultations, Panel decisions and the amended EHC Plan. The Council also did not give her a clear overall plan setting out what it would do, by when, and what would happen if a preferred placement was unavailable.
84. In response to my draft decision, Miss X said these communication problems had continued. She said she had not been told the outcome of a Panel consideration in July 2026 and had instead been left to seek information through others involved in Y’s case. I have not investigated that individual event separately. However, her comments are consistent with the wider pattern of poor communication already identified and reinforce the need for the Council to provide clear and proactive updates about Y’s case.
85. This fault caused Miss X avoidable uncertainty, frustration and time and trouble. It also compounded the impact of the substantive delays because she could not be confident the Council was actively progressing Y’s case.
86. The Council had already paid £500 to recognise poor communication and service. I consider whether that payment, together with its revised offer, adequately remedies the injustice in the next section.

Injustice and remedy

87. Where fault has caused injustice, the Ombudsman seeks to place the person affected in the position they would have been in but for the fault, so far as possible. Where this cannot be achieved, we may recommend a symbolic financial payment to recognise matters such as lost educational opportunity, distress, uncertainty, delayed appeal rights and avoidable time and trouble. The Council’s faults caused injustice to both Y and Miss X.
88. Y received education throughout the period I have investigated, and I have not found fault in the Council’s decision to provide a reduced timetable through Alternative Provider A. However, the Council failed to satisfy itself that it secured all the special educational provision in Y’s EHC Plan. It also failed to take timely and coordinated action to identify a suitable school placement from March 2025 onwards.
89. I cannot say Y would definitely have secured a school place earlier had the Council acted without fault. Several schools had previously raised concerns about meeting his needs, and the Council’s Panel had not agreed he required specialist provision. However, the Council’s delay meant potential placements were not explored when they should have been. Y therefore lost a significant opportunity to return to a school setting sooner.
90. There is also uncertainty about whether Y would have received a broader or more effective educational package had the Council properly reviewed the delivery of his EHC Plan provision and introduced additional academic tuition earlier. The evidence shows Y benefited from Alternative Provider A, so it would not be appropriate to treat this as a period in which he received no education. Nevertheless, the Council’s failure to demonstrate how it secured the whole of Section F caused Y a loss of educational opportunity.
91. The delay in completing the EHC Plan review and amendment process also caused injustice. Y’s needs and provision were not reflected in an up-to-date Plan while the Council considered his future placement. Miss X was unable to use her appeal rights to challenge the contents of the Plan or the type of placement the Council considered appropriate. This caused her prolonged uncertainty and frustration.
92. The Council’s poor communication compounded these faults. Miss X had to pursue the Council repeatedly for information and remained uncertain about what action it was taking. The failure to implement corrective action after earlier complaint responses also caused her additional time and trouble.
93. The Council initially paid Miss X £2,400. This comprised £1,000 for its failure to pursue a school placement, £900 for the delay in amending the EHC Plan and £500 for poor communication and service.
94. Following my enquiries, the Council proposed increasing the remedy to a total of £4,000. The Council’s response indicates the £4,000 is intended to be the total remedy, inclusive of the £2,400 already paid. This would leave a further payment of £1,600.
95. In response to my draft decision, Miss X said the earlier payment should not be absorbed into the revised remedy because the faults continued after that payment was made. I have considered that point. However, the earlier payment and the revised proposal relate to overlapping and continuing faults, including delay in progressing a placement, delay in amending the EHC Plan and poor communication. I have therefore assessed the cumulative injustice over the period investigated, rather than treating the later period as a wholly separate injustice requiring a separate remedy.
96. I have considered Miss X’s comments about the level of remedy. Y continued to receive education and gained educational and emotional benefit from Alternative Provider A. I have not found that he was without education altogether. However, the Council failed to satisfy itself that it secured all the provision in his EHC Plan and delayed taking timely action to identify a suitable school placement. This caused Y a significant loss of educational opportunity.
97. I cannot say, on balance, that Y would definitely have secured a school placement earlier but for the Council’s fault. Taking account of the education he received, the duration and cumulative impact of the faults, Miss X’s delayed appeal rights, and the prolonged uncertainty and time and trouble caused, I remain satisfied the Council’s revised total remedy of £4,000 is proportionate. The Council has already paid Miss X £2,400 and should therefore pay the remaining £1,600.
98. A financial payment alone is not sufficient because the faults remained ongoing when the Council responded to my enquiries. The Council should also complete the EHC Plan amendment process, provide Miss X with a clear written plan for securing a suitable school placement, and demonstrate how it will deliver each element of Y’s Section F provision while he remains in alternative provision.

Back to top

Actions

99. To remedy injustice in this complaint, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide an apology to Miss X for the faults identified and the injustice caused. The apology should be in line with our published guidance on remedies.
2. Pay Miss X a further £1,600 as set out above, bringing the total remedy to £4,000.
3. Complete the amendment of Y’s EHC Plan without further delay.
4. Provide Miss X with a written plan setting out the action it will take to secure a suitable school placement for Y.
5. Review Y’s current alternative provision against Section F of his EHC Plan and identify any gaps in provision.
100. The Council will complete actions a) to c) within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision and actions d) and e) within two months of the Ombudsman’s final decision.

Back to top

Decision

101. The Council was at fault for failing to demonstrate it secured all the special educational provision in Y’s EHC Plan, failing to take timely action to identify a suitable school placement, delaying the EHC Plan amendment process and communicating poorly with Miss X. These faults caused Y a loss of educational opportunity and caused Miss X avoidable distress, uncertainty, delayed appeal rights and time and trouble. The Council has agreed to our recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman