Summary: Miss X complained the Council did not correctly amend her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed providing them with special educational provision after a tribunal order. She said the Council’s failings negatively impacted her child’s progress at school. We found fault by the Council for failing to provide Miss X’s child with support which caused them to miss provision and caused Miss X distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council did not amend her child’s (Y) Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan as ordered by the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability). She said this meant Y’s EHC Plan did not reflect the support they needed and they might not get the right support in future.
2. Miss X also complained the Council delayed providing the speech and language therapy and 1:1 learning support from Y’s EHC Plan. She said missing support caused Y to struggle with their wellbeing and negatively impacted their educational progress.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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)
6. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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

EHC Plans and special educational provision

9. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care 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.
10. 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 (Children and Families Act 2014, section 42).
11. 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. 

The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability)

12. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs and EHC Plans. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
13. Parents and young people can appeal the contents of an EHC Plan to the Tribunal. Where a council has been ordered by the Tribunal to amend the special educational provision specified in the EHC plan, the council must issue the amended EHC plan within five weeks of the order being made. (Regulation 44 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014)
14. Case law has established councils have a legal duty to secure the special educational provision in an EHC Plan by the time the amended final EHC Plan is issued following an appeal to the Tribunal. (BA, R (on the application of) v Nottinghamshire County Council [2021] EWHC 1348 (Admin))
15. We cannot direct changes to the sections of an EHC Plan about a child or young person’s needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 

What happened

The Tribunal order

16. In January 2025, after an appeal hearing, the Tribunal ordered the Council to amend Y’s EHC Plan.
17. In February 2025 the Council sent Y’s amended final EHC Plan to Miss X.

Y’s EHC Plan

18. In May 2025 Miss X complained to the Council about Y’s amended final EHC Plan. She said the Council had put wording in section F of the Plan which didn’t comply with the Tribunal’s order.
19. Miss X disagreed with the following wording in section F of Y’s EHC Plan under their communication and interaction needs:
20. “One to one adult support for all [their] teacher led core subjects to interpret instructions for [them], and provide visual support, modelling and prompting to enable [them] to access learning.”
21. Miss X complained this did not reflect the Tribunal’s order, which said Y should get 1:1 support in all subjects, not just core subjects.
22. The Council replied in June 2025. It said it had met the requirements of the Tribunal’s order which said Y needed 1:1 support for their cognition and learning needs, and in that subsection of their EHC Plan it included the following:
23. “1:1, targeted daily support, throughout all learning sessions.”
24. The Council clarified to Miss X it intended to provide Y with 1:1 support in all subjects and it felt the EHC Plan reflected that.
25. The Council told us it felt it had amended Y’s EHC Plan in a way which met the requirements of the Tribunal order.

Y’s special educational provision

26. In February 2025 the Council sent Y’s proposed amended EHC Plan to Y’s school and asked it to confirm if it agreed to the changes. Y’s school replied to say it had no issues with the EHC Plan.
27. Miss X complained to the Council in May that Y was not getting the 1:1 support or speech therapy from their EHC Plan.
28. In June 2025 the Council started contacting speech therapy providers.
29. In November 2025, Y’s school emailed the Council to say it had not received the funding it needed for Y’s 1:1 support.
30. In November 2025 the Council sent some funding to Y’s school for 1:1 support. It then sent more funding in December 2025.
31. Y’s speech therapy sessions started in December 2025. Y’s school also started recruiting for a 1:1 support worker in December 2025.

Analysis

Y’s EHC Plan

32. Miss X and the Council disagreed on how to interpret the Tribunal order.
33. To decide if there was fault by the Council on this point, I have considered the working document and the Tribunal order.
34. I have considered what the Tribunal likely intended based on an ordinary reading of its order.
35. During an appeal about the contents of an EHC Plan, it is common for both parties to create a document called a working document. The parties use this document to try and agree changes to the EHC Plan with each other, before the final hearing. This leaves less unresolved issues for the Tribunal to decide on in the final hearing.
36. The Tribunal order said:
37. “Devon County Council must issue to [sic] a final EHCP to reflect the agreed content set out in working document 8 but amended to reflect… that [Y] is to be provided 1:1 support by a teaching assistant for all taught subjects.”
38. The Tribunal order said the following about the 1:1 support for Y:
39. “The identified need (agreed by Devon County Council) applies and impacts all areas.”
40. “There is no evidence in the bundle which justifies differentiation between core subjects and non-core subjects in the manner suggested by the EHCP as proposed by Devon County Council.”
41. “Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that 1:1 support is required in all taught subjects and the EHCP should be amended to reflect that 1:1 support is to be provided during all taught subjects.”
42. I accept the Council’s argument Miss X agreed to the sentence with the word ‘core lessons’ in the working document and this was why the Council left it in Y’s EHC Plan.
43. I also accept the Council’s comment that it put 1:1 support in all lessons in another part of section F of Y’s EHC Plan, which means Y was entitled to 1:1 support in all lessons.
44. However, there is no evidence to support the Council’s argument the Tribunal’s order about 1:1 support only applied to one subsection of Y’s needs. The order said the Tribunal found Y needed 1:1 support for their needs in all areas.
45. Although the Council’s comments provide a rational explanation for its decision, the Tribunal order was clear there was no evidence to support that Y needed 1:1 support only in ‘core lessons’ and so that should have been replaced in their EHC Plan with ‘all lessons’.
46. Therefore, this was fault by the Council because it failed to properly consider the relevant information in the Tribunal order when it decided how to amend Y’s EHC Plan.
47. However, this fault caused no injustice to Y. The Council added 1:1 support in all learning sessions in another part of their EHC Plan and so this was what they were entitled to once the Council issued their amended final EHC Plan.
48. Although Y did not receive their 1:1 support once the Council issued their amended final EHC Plan, this was due to a different fault by the Council, which I have discussed later in this decision.
49. I appreciate why Miss X worried the wording in Y’s EHC Plan could lead to them not receiving the right support in future. However, we cannot consider a potential individual injustice and any future injustice to Y is speculative only.
50. The Council told Miss X in June 2025 it would provide Y 1:1 support in all lessons. Therefore, Miss X had no uncertainty about the Council’s decision from then.
51. Overall, the Council was at fault for leaving ‘core lessons’ in Y’s amended final EHC Plan in relation to their 1:1 support. This fault caused no significant injustice to Y or Miss X.
52. Because the Council’s fault did not cause a significant injustice to Y or Miss X, I have not recommended any actions for it to take on this point.

Y’s special educational provision

53. The Tribunal issued an order to amend the EHC Plan in January 2025, with a five-week deadline for the Council to comply. Case law has found the five-week deadline allows councils to start securing the bulk of the special educational provision in the EHC Plan, so that it can be in place by the time the amended final EHC Plan is issued.
54. The Council told us it asked Y’s school to confirm it accepted Y’s proposed EHC Plan in February 2025. When Y’s school confirmed this without further comment, the Council thought this meant the school accepted it could provide all Y’s support with its current resources.
55. We don’t expect councils to keep a watching brief on how special educational provision is delivered as we accept this is not practical. However, we expect councils to act once they are aware there may be an issue with a child’s special educational provision.
56. On balance, the Council likely became aware that Y was not receiving all their special educational provision in May 2025, when Miss X complained to it.
57. Therefore, the Council was at fault for not securing the special educational provision from May 2025 until December 2025, when it paid for all Y’s support.
58. This fault caused injustice to Y because they missed special educational provision they needed.
59. Our guidance on remedies explains that where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 to £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss.
60. In Y’s case, £1,600 for two terms is appropriate to remedy any loss of education and special educational provision between May 2025 and December 2025. This considers relevant factors such as:

• Y still had access to a school place and the other support in their EHC Plan; and,
• Y did not get full time 1:1 support which had a significant impact on their ability to engage with education.

Service improvements

61. Where we find fault by an organisation, we can recommend changes to improve how the organisation delivers its services to prevent the same issue happening to others.
62. The Council told us it has made changes to improve its services such as:

• when asking schools to agree to a proposed amended EHC Plan, the Council will also ask if the school will need any more resources to deliver the support from the Plan;
• increased sick leave cover for case workers which it said should improve delays in securing special educational provision; and
• introduced a five-working day response time for the Council’s tribunal team.

63. These actions seem proportionate to prevent the same fault from this complaint happening again. Therefore, I have not made any recommendations on how the Council can make changes to improve its services, but we will monitor the effectiveness of the Council’s actions through our casework.

Back to top

Agreed action

64. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will:
1. apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused to her and Y by its delays in securing special educational provision for Y. This apology should be in accordance with our guidance for making an effective apology; and
2. pay Miss X £3,200 to remedy Y’s loss of special educational provision between May 2025 and December 2025.
65. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

66. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman