Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to promptly organise exams for her son, Mr Y. Miss X said this delayed Mr Y taking the exams and he could not retake if needed. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to promptly organise exams for her son, Mr Y. Miss X said this delayed Mr Y taking the exams and he could not retake if needed.

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. 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 s34H(1), as amended)
3. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I read Miss X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
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 received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

7. 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. 
8. 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)  
9. 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. 

What happened

10. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
11. The Council issued an EHC Plan for Mr Y in September 2022. The plan named a community football trust. The Council arranged for tuition at Mr Y’s home.
12. The Council reviewed the EHC Plan in June 2024. Miss X asked the Council to arrange an exam for Mr Y. She said the exam would need to be at the family home. Mr Y’s tutor said he may be ready to take the exam in approximately one month.
13. Miss X asked the Council to arrange the exam in October 2024. The Council agreed, and asked the education provider to arrange the exam with Miss X and Mr Y. The Council confirmed the exam would be online, with virtual invigilation, to enable Mr Y to complete the exam at home.
14. The Council told the education provider it would fund the exam in November 2024. Miss X raised concerns about her laptop and the room inspection at home. Miss X asked the Council to arrange an alternative for Mr Y. The Council offered a laptop to support Mr Y with technical issues. The Council also offered a room at its offices. Miss X explained the technical issues. The Council said it would rebook the exam when technical issues were resolved. It repeated its offer to provide a laptop and room at its offices or a local library. Miss X arranged for another laptop and asked the Council to complete the exam at home with an invigilator in person.
15. The Council reviewed the EHC Plan in January 2025. Miss X asked the Council to arrange the exam and asked if the tuition company could offer an invigilator. The Council asked the tuition company.
16. In February 2025, the tuition company confirmed they did not offer invigilators in person. The Council then asked the education provider to provide an in-person invigilator. The provider said it could not offer this. The Council told Miss X and repeated its offer to provide a laptop and hold the exam at its offices to resolve technical issues.
17. At the end of February 2025, Miss X asked the Council to look at alternative options for a paper-based exam at home. The Council contacted other providers asking if they could support Mr Y. Some of the responses confirmed this was not possible. One provider confirmed it could offer a home exam, but the costs would increase for a home-based exam.
18. Miss X complained to the Council in March 2025. She complained the Council agreed to arrange the exam, but she had not received a response.
19. The Council issued the complaint response in April 2025. The Council said it made attempts to arrange the exam, arranged it in November 2024 but technical issues stopped the exam and there were issues with the room inspection. The response said it offered alternative arrangements to access the exam. The Council did not uphold the complaint.
20. Miss X asked the Council to escalate her complaint at the end of April 2025. She said the Council had not responded to her request to arrange the exam. She said because of the technical issues she asked the Council to consider other options, but the Council repeated its offer of an online exam. Miss X asked for a home invigilator.
21. The Council continued to engage with exam providers to consider alternative exam options.
22. The Council issued its final complaint response at the end of May 2025. The Council did not uphold the complaint. The response said the Council agreed to a virtual exam, but this was not possible due to technical difficulties and offered alternative ways to access the online exam.
23. The Council arranged the exam with the tuition provider in June 2025. The tuition company visited the family home to complete a technical test. On the visit, the company confirmed it could not complete the exam due to technical difficulties. Miss X told the Council Mr Y would like a paper-based exam at home. Miss X contacted a local exam centre who agreed to provide the exam at the family home. The Council asked Miss X to arrange with the exam centre, and it would consider paying for the exam. The Council confirmed it was not aware of any reason Mr Y could not complete a virtual exam, other than the technical difficulties and repeated its offer to provide the exam and invigilator virtually at its offices.
24. Miss X arranged the exam, and the Council paid for the exam and invigilators in July 2025.
25. The Council ceased to maintain the EHC Plan in August 2025 as Mr Y finished the academic year after he turned 25.
26. Miss X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Miss X would like the Council to apologise and fund another exam for Mr Y.
27. In response to my enquiries the Council stated it agreed to fund the exam in good faith and offered a different location for Mr Y to sit the virtual exam to resolve the technical issues.

My findings

28. The EHC Plan does not specify the Council should arrange exams for Mr Y. However, the Council agreed to provide and arrange the exams. The Council arranged the exam for November 2024 after the tutor confirmed Mr Y was ready to take the exam. Miss X raised concerns about technical issues and invigilators inspecting the environment. Invigilators must inspect the area to ensure compliance with exam conditions. The Council is not responsible for the technical issues experienced and offered alternatives. The Council was not at fault.
29. The Council offered to provide equipment and a room to complete the exam. Miss X asked for an online exam with an in-person invigilator. The Council asked providers if they could do this. The providers reported they could not. The Council tried to arrange an alternative option, but this was not available. The Council was not at fault.
30. Miss X asked for an in-person exam at the family home. The Council contacted providers, who said this was not possible, unless the Council paid an increased cost. The Council considered its offer of technical equipment and space was reasonable and repeated this offer. The Council can make this decision, as the exam is not in the EHC Plan. The Council was not at fault.
31. The Council tried to arrange another virtual exam for Mr Y, but the provider confirmed the family equipment did not pass the technical test. The Council attempted to arrange the exam and is not responsible for the technical issues. It also offered for Mr Y to use space in the Council offices and Council equipment when the family experienced technical difficulties. The Council was not at fault.
32. Miss X then contacted a provider the Council previously contacted, who confirmed they could offer the exam. The Council confirmed it would consider paying for the exam if Miss X arranged it, but its offer was to arrange a virtual exam in its offices. Miss X arranged the exam and the Council funded it. Mr Y then sat the exam. The Council has not significantly delayed taking the exam. Technical issues and concerns about invigilation methods significantly delayed the exam, but the Council is not responsible for this and offered alternatives for Mr Y to sit the exam earlier. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Decision

33. I have completed my investigation. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman