Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions linked to her son’s education. We found fault because the Council did not act decisively in arranging interim education provision when it had committed to do so. The Council also failed to provide updates to Miss X as it said it would. This caused Miss X avoidable distress and meant her son’s interim provision did not start as early as planned. Miss X has already accepted a payment from the Council linked to its decision on missed interim provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to her for not acting decisively in arranging this and for poor communication.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s actions relating to her son, Y’s, education. Specifically, she complains:
• it was too slow to try and organise a permanent placement for his education when his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was issued;
• it was too slow to arrange interim provision when no school was in place for September 2024;
• the amount of interim provision delivered was initially not enough;
• that interim provision did not deliver an appropriate education to him; and
• transport to and from his interim provisions is not suitable given his individual needs.
2. Miss X says this has caused her avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. She says it has affected Y’s education and wellbeing.

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 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. We cannot investigate matters if someone has or could have appealed to a tribunal about the same matters. 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)
7. 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.
8. The Council issued an amended EHC Plan in February 2024 linked to Y’s move to secondary education in September 2024. Section I of the plan named Y’s type of setting as ‘Specialist’ from September but did not specify a particular school. I cannot investigate Miss X’s complaint about delays in finding a permanent specialist placement for Y as the naming of a specialist placement is a matter which could be considered by the Tribunal. I cannot investigate matters related to any missing provision as set out in Section F of Y’s EHC Plan. This is because Y’s provision was largely dependent on him attending a school setting – the named lack of which Miss X could have appealed to the Tribunal. As I consider these matters are too closely connected to what could have been appealed, I cannot investigate them.
9. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. This is called our general discretion (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)) The courts have said we must not overlap with matters that have or could have been raised with the Tribunal (R v Local Commissioner for Administration for the North and East Area of England, ex parte Bradford MBC [1979]).
10. The Council gave the expectation to Miss X that it would organise interim education provision (interim provision) for Y when no permanent setting had been found. I will investigate matters related to this as they are outside of the Tribunal process.
11. My investigation begins in July 2024 when the Council told Miss X it was going to organise interim provision for Y.
12. My investigation ends when Miss X brought her complaint to us late in June 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I have considered all the information Miss X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
14. Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Special educational needs

15. A child with special educational needs (SEN) may have an EHC Plan. This 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 (Section B), education (Section F), or the name of the educational placement (Section I). Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 
16. Section 14 of the SEND Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) states that when sending a final EHC Plan, councils must notify parents of their right to appeal about the EHC Plan, the time limits for doing so and information about mediation, amongst others. We refer to this as ‘the decision letter’ in this statement.

What happened

17. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
18. At the beginning of my investigation, Y was still at primary school. An EHC Plan had been in place for some time. This plan named a mainstream primary school which also had a communication and interaction unit on site. Y has a range of needs linked to his SEN. He was due to move to secondary school in September 2024.
19. As part of the key transfer process linked to Y’s EHC Plan and his move to secondary school, the Council issued an updated plan early in February 2024 along with the decision letter. Section I of this plan named Y’s existing primary school until the end of August 2024. Section I also stated that his type of setting from September 2024 would be ‘specialist’ but did not name a specific school.

Interim provision search

20. The Council began to approach alternative education providers (AEPs) with a view to arranging some interim provision for Y until a permanent specialist placement could be found. The Council made this decision on 11 July 2024 and sent three consultations to AEPs on 17 July 2024.
21. On 8 August 2024, the Council emailed Miss X to advise it had confirmed a bespoke package of interim provision for Y for September 2024 to July 2025 with an AEP, Provider A. It said it would also arrange a further ten hours of vocation-based provision for him if Miss X wished. The Council advised Miss X Provider A would get in touch with her directly to discuss the package.
22. Miss X chased the Council on 19 August 2024 as she had heard nothing from Provider A. The Council responded on 22 August to repeat that Provider A would be in touch. It emailed Provider A to again ask it to make contact.
23. The Council sent a further two consultations to other AEPs at the end of August.
24. On 3 September 2024, Miss X again chased the Council as she had still not heard from Provider A. The Council contacted Provider A again. Provider A queried the email address the Council was using for it and agreed to contact Miss X.
25. After Provider A had contacted her on 5 September, Miss X emailed the Council. She was unhappy with Provider A’s suggestion of a library to deliver interim provision as members of the general public would also be on site and it was in a busy area. She said it had no appropriate spaces for Y to take required breaks between learning.
26. The Council made other referrals to AEPs, one at the beginning of September and five more towards the end of the month.
27. By the end of September, there was still no interim provision organised for Y.
28. Early in October 2024, one of the providers consulted in late September, Provider B, offered Y a package of interim provision. This was for two hours each afternoon.
29. The Council continued to chase previously approached AEPs for responses and for updates about whether they could offer a package for Y.
30. The Council agreed Provider B’s package in mid-October and it began in early November 2024.
31. Early in December 2024, The Council continued to search for other interim provision which would fit around that already in place at Provider B.
32. At the end of December, the Council approached Provider C. On 14 January 2025, Provider C offered a package of interim provision to cover mornings. This started on 6 February 2025.
33. In response to Miss X’s later concerns about Provider B, the Council made further approaches to new AEPs in April and May 2025. This resulted in a new AEP working with Y from September 2025 onwards to replace Provider B.

Miss X’s complaint and the Council’s remedy offer

34. Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council on 20 February 2025. Miss X said:
• Y’s travel arrangements to and from both provisions were inappropriate;
• he was travelling in four different taxis per day, from home to Provision C in the morning and then back home at lunchtime. Y then travelled from home to Provision B and back in the afternoon; and
• his educational needs were not being met.
35. The Council sent its stage one complaint response on 21 March 2025. In this, it:
• addressed travel related concerns;
• said it would discuss Y’s education with Provider B; and
• said it would contact her to discuss her preferences for different interim provision.
36. Miss X met with the Council in April 2025. Following on from the meeting, it emailed her on 16 April. It apologised for its lack of communication with her and offered a remedy for Y’s lost interim provision.
37. The Council offered £3700 in total, broken down as:
• £1800 for the lack of any education in September and October 2024;
• £1500 for the partial loss of education from November 2024 to February 2025 until Provider C started to work with Y. This included a week where there was no provision available at Provider B;
• £400 for the avoidable distress she had suffered.
38. The Council said it would check in with her every two weeks to see how matters were progressing. It finished the email by saying she could now approach the Ombudsman if she wished.
39. Following further communication with the Council at the beginning of May 2025 regarding missing hours being delivered at Provision B over certain specific weeks, the Council offered a further £200 to Miss X for 16 hours of lost provision.
40. Miss X discussed her complaint again with the Council late in June 2025. The Council replied to say it had already considered matters and would not look at the complaint again. It directed Miss X to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

41. I have investigated whether the Council was at fault when organising and providing interim provision to Y.

The search for a permanent specialist placement

42. As outlined above, I am unable to investigate matters linked to the search for a permanent placement as these are not within our jurisdiction.

Interim provision when no specialist placement had been found

43. The Council made the decision to approach AEPs on 11 July 2024. This gave Miss X the expectation that Y would have some form of interim provision.
44. On 8 August 2024, the Council agreed the costs for Y to receive 15 hours per week from September 2024 to July 2025 at Provider A. It confirmed this to Miss X and offered to arrange a further 10 hours more vocational style provision for him.
45. However, on 19 August and two weeks before the start of the academic year, Miss X contacted the Council to say that she had still not heard from Provider A. The Council emailed to chase this rather than call, despite the new term being only two weeks away and Miss X expecting the provision to start in September. The Council did not establish contact with Provider A until 3 September 2024, which was the day after the official start of the academic year and only after a further chase from Miss X.
46. In the circumstances of this complaint and given the expectation it set for Miss X, I am satisfied the Council should have taken more decisive action in mid-August when Miss X complained she had still not heard from Provider A. I am satisfied not doing so was fault. This caused a delay in contact resulting in avoidable distress and frustration for Miss X and uncertainty about how the interim provision would work. It also meant that when Provider A was later deemed unsuitable, Y’s interim provision did not begin in September as Miss X expected. This in turn meant Y was without access to any education at all until early November. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
47. Regarding the other consultations, I am satisfied the Council took appropriate and timely action. From late August 2024 onwards, it made referrals, chased answers from those it had already approached and communicated with providers as necessary. I find no fault in its actions here.
48. The Council made the decision to offer Miss X a remedy payment for missed interim provision which I discuss later in this decision.

Initial amount of interim provision organised for Y

49. The Council offered to organise additional interim provision to the offer from Provider A. When Provider A’s offer was deemed unsuitable, Provider B was confirmed in mid-October 2024 and began to deliver tuition from early November 2024 instead.
50. From early-December 2024 onwards, the Council continued to communicate with both new and previously consulted AEPs with the aim of filling the morning gap in Y’s timetable. The gap was filled when Provider C began to deliver interim provision to Y at the beginning of February 2025.
51. I acknowledge Miss X’s frustration that the amount of interim provision delivered to Y before February 2025 was not what the Council had intended or what she had hoped for. This meant Y was without education other than at Provision B until February. However, I am satisfied that the Council acted appropriately in trying to organise additional interim provision for Y and find no fault in its actions here.
52. The Council made the decision that as Y was not offered the intended full-time interim provision before February 2025, it would offer Miss X £1500 payment for partial missed education. I will further address the remedy later in this decision.

Did interim provision provide appropriate education?

53. In my enquiries, I asked the Council what consideration it had given to how Y’s provision was organised during my investigation period.
54. In response, the Council said the provision arranged during the period represented the most appropriate available option whilst the search for a permanent placement continued. It said given the highly bespoke nature of Y’s needs, it arranged the most suitable education it could.
55. As set out above, I am unable to investigate the delivery of Section F provision set out in Y’s EHC Plan as this is something closely linked to the lack of a named setting which could have been appealed to the Tribunal.
56. When Miss X said she was unhappy with what was being delivered at Provider B, the Council responded by trying to find another provider to replace it. Although this did not work out, I consider the Council organised the most appropriate available interim provision whilst Y was without a named school placement and the search continued. I am satisfied there is no fault on the Council’s part here.

Travel to and from Providers B and C

57. In response to my enquiries, the Council said consideration was given to Y’s travel times but that his needs meant there was a very limited number of providers it was able to approach. Suitable providers were not available closer to home. The Council confirmed Provider B was approximately 38 minutes away from home and Provider C 35 minutes.
58. Statutory guidance about travel times for secondary-age children states that, as a general guide, journeys should be no more than 75 minutes each way. The guidance also notes that journeys for children with SEND can be particularly complex and that a child may need to travel a long way to the location that is able to meet their needs.
59. I acknowledge Miss X’s unhappiness about the transitions between environments and the lack of time for Y to decompress between sessions. However, in the circumstances of his interim provision, the Council had no other available options closer to Y’s home. The Council investigated whether Y could have lunch on site between his morning and afternoon sessions but this was not possible.
60. Considering the lack of other options and Y not being able to eat on site, I am satisfied that there is no fault on the Council’s part here.

Communication

61. As part of its complaint responses, the Council acknowledged and apologised for the lack of communication Miss X complained of. In response, it offered to contact her every two weeks (from May 2025) to check in and see how matters were progressing.
62. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed that this had not regularly happened. This is fault and added to the distress and frustration Miss X already felt. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Remedy payments

63. Over the course of the academic year 2024-25, the Council offered Miss X a combined total of £3900 to remedy what it considered as lost interim provision and distress.
64. In considering the identified fault and the linked injustice found in my investigation, I am satisfied the remedy already offered by the Council is significantly higher than we would recommend for the injustice caused. On this basis, I make no further financial recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

65. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X for the identified injustice within four weeks of the date of my final decision.
66. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
67. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

68. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman