Summary: We found fault for the Council removing funding for provision from Ms X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan before it made a suitable decision that this provision was no longer needed or removed it from the Education, Health and Care Plan. We also found fault with the Council’s complaint handling delays and inaccurate information within the complaint responses. The Council agreed to reimburse Ms X for the costs incurred sourcing the Education, Health and Care Plan provision, until the Council removed this provision from the plan, and provide an apology for the injustice caused by its fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to suitably manage and put in place her child’s EHC Plan provision detailed in Section H2 of their plan for transition to his educational placement.
2. Mrs X says she had to facilitate monitoring and review of the provision and manage the communication between two council departments because of a lack accountability followed by a third organisation in January 2025.
3. Mrs X says because of the Council’s mismanagement and failure to plan a step-down from the service, she had to fund private provision at £500 per month.
4. Mrs X also complained the Council has provided inconsistent and inaccurate information in its complaint responses and raised concerns about the language and tone used by the Council which further added to her stress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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

10. I have investigated the Council’s implementation of Ms X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan Section H2 provision from the creation of the plan, in August 2024, until the Council amended the plan in March 2025. I have referenced events before and after this timescale where it relates to the matters under investigation from August 2024 to March 2025.
11. I have not investigated matters since March 2025. This is because the Council amended the Education, Health and Care Plan and removed the Section H2 provision. This meant the Council was no longer required to provide this provision after March 2025.
12. 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. Any dispute about the content of a child’s Education, Health and Care Plan should be made to the Tribunal as the appropriate body. Ms X has appealed removal of the Section H2 provision to the Tribunal and any dispute over deliver of this provision after its removal from the plan is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
13. Ms X also had an appeal right to the Tribunal about the Council’s decision not to complete a further review of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
15. Ms X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Rules and regulations

EHC Plans

16. 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. 
17. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
• Section H2: Any other social care provision reasonably required by the learning difficulties or disabilities which result in the child or young person having SEN. (Where relevant this includes adult social care provision to meet eligible needs under the Care Act 2014).

Council complaints procedure

18. The Council has a two stage complaints process. At stage one the Council says it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days and aims to provide a response within 10 working days and will advise if it needs longer to respond.
19. The Council’s policy says a person can request review of their complaint at stage two. The Council says it will acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a full complaint response within 20 workings days of the acknowledgement. The Council says it will let a person know if it will not meet the complaint timescales.

What happened

20. The Council’s Childrens Social Care Team put in place funded mentoring for Ms X’s child, Y, as part of a Child In Need plan in 2023. The Childrens Social Care Team maintained this funded mentoring through to production of Y’s EHC Plan in August 2024.
21. Before production of Y’s EHC Plan, the Council’s Education Team requested funding at an Education Panel for this mentoring by Education services. The Education Panel rejected this funding request because it did not consider this was an educational or training provision and instead advised this should be in Section H2 as a social care provision.
22. The Council produced Y’s EHC Plan in August 2024 and included a Section H2 provision for support from a community mentor to help Y transition to their placement and support attendance and engagement. The EHC Plan specified this provision should be in place for at least the first term, until the end of October 2024, and then monitored and reviewed as appropriate.
23. Ms X liaised with the Council about it putting the mentoring provision in Section H2 rather than Section F. The Council explained its decision to Ms X and advised about how she could appeal this decision. Ms X did not appeal this decision.
24. The Council’s Childrens Social Care Team completed Child In Need meetings for Y in September 2024 and November 2024. At these meetings the Council reviewed the mentoring provision and agreed to extend funding until the end of December 2024. In the latter meeting the Council noted Y no longer met the threshold for statutory intervention but needed to resolve mentoring before it closed Y’s case.
25. In December 2024, the Council’s Childrens Social Care Team requested extra funding for mentoring at a Social Care Panel. The Social Care Panel said it considered the mentoring was an educational provision but recognised that this was significant support that Y needed in place. The notes detailed concerns that without this mentoring Y would deteriorate and this would result in social cares involvement again. The Social Care Panel agreed to extra funding until the end of January 2025 so a suitable transition plan could take place with Y’s educational placement taking over mentoring support for Y.
26. In January 2025, the Council held a Child In Need meeting for Y. The Council stated:
• The EHC Plan in its current format is not working as shown by Y’s low attendance.
• The professional network for Y had not got Y’s transition into education right at this stage.
• An early review of Y’s EHC Plan should take place to assess how Y accesses his educational placement and the support in place for this.
• The Childrens Social Care Team had commissioned Y’s mentoring until mid-February 2025.
• Y’s mentoring had proven to be the most effective support for Y so far.
• It proposed changes to this mentoring to help support Y more in future but was wary of doing so in the knowledge that this support may be withdrawn.
• It was unlikely the mentoring provided through Y’s educational placement could replicate the community mentoring provided.
• The threshold for a Child In Need plan is no longer met but Y needs mentoring as a stepping out of service provision and a robust educational review.
27. Ms X asked for a review of Y’s EHC Plan. Ms X said the dispute between the Council departments about funding for the mentoring provision means this was going to stop. Ms X said Y’s difficulties with attendance, which the mentoring supports, is putting Y’s placement at risk and removal of this provision would further jeopardise this.
28. The Council held an emergency annual review of Y’s EHC Plan in February 2025. The annual review notes confirmed the mentoring support was going to end in mid-February 2025 and Ms X was concerned about this provision ending. The Childrens Social Care Team provided input to the annual review that Y’s mentoring has been integral to Y’s improvement and in accessing education.
29. The Council’s Education Team took the mentoring funding back to the Education Panel in February 2025. The Education Panel reiterated its previous decision that the mentoring was not an education provision. The Education Panel said it expected Y to build relationships with their educational placement and could access mentoring and other services through Targeted Programmes.
30. Ms X started to fund mentoring herself for Y following the Council’s stop in funding.
31. At the start of March 2025, the Council confirmed its plan to amend Y’s EHC Plan and shared a draft EHC Plan with Ms X.
32. Ms X raised a formal complaint with the Council. Ms X said:
• She disputed the Council’s decision to remove mentoring from Y’s EHC Plan.
• The Council has withdrawn mentoring without a transition plan in place which has impacted on Y’s ability to engage with education.
• Ms X asked for a formal review and reassessment of Y.
33. The Council issued an amended Final EHC Plan for Y in March 2025 removing the Section H2 provision for mentoring.
34. In May 2025, the Council issued a stage one complaint response to Ms X. The Council said:
• It apologised for the delay in providing the complaint response.
• It agreed mentoring as a temporary provision as a funded provision but has now removed the mentoring support.
• Its records show its Childrens Social Care Team provided transition to Y’s educational placement and if Y needed ongoing support Y’s educational placement should provide this.
• It held a formal annual review of Y’s EHC Plan in February 2025. The Council said it would only hold another annual review if there was a change in need or placement which has not happened. The Council said it would not hold another annual review or reassessment of Y now.
35. Ms X sought consideration of her complaint at stage two of the Council’s complaints process. Ms X said:
• There were inaccuracies in the stage one complaint response about dates and content.
• She believed the Council decided to remove the Section H2 provision based on cost rather than Y’s need.
• The Council mismanaged Y’s transition and disputed the Childrens Social Care Team provided suitable monitoring or support. Ms X said there was no transition plan.
• Ms X reiterated her request for a formal review of Y’s needs.
36. In June 2025, the Council provided its stage two complaint response. The Council said:
• The Social Care Panel agreed to extend funding in December 2024 so Y’s educational placement could work out how to offer similar mentoring support for Y.
• The Child In Need meeting in January 2025 was held to discuss transition of the support to Y’s educational placement with a proposed Team Around the Family meeting in six weeks to review.
• It sought consideration for funding at Education Panel for Y but the Education Panel declined this because it considered the mentoring was not needed in Section F of Y’s EHC Plan.
• It does not need to reinstate the mentoring for Y as this is not formal educational provision.
37. In July 2025, Ms X appealed the March 2025 EHC Plan to the Tribunal.

Analysis

EHC Plan provision

38. Y’s EHC Plan was specific the Council should provide the mentoring provision until at least the end of October 2024 with the provision monitored and reviewed as appropriate. The EHC Plan was also specific this provision was social care provision and not educational provision.
39. The Council has evidenced it kept the provision in place until mid-February 2025 so met the minimum timescale. The Council has also evidenced it kept the provision under review with Child In Need and Panel meetings considering the provision in September 2024, November 2024, December 2024 and January 2025.
40. I do not find fault with the Council’s actions for delivery and review of Y’s Section H2 provision from production of the EHC Plan in August 2024 until mid-February 2025. The Council has acted in line with the wording of the August 2024 EHC Plan and ensured funding for this mentoring until mid-February 2025.
41. The wording of Y’s EHC Plan meant the Council could stop Y’s Section H2 provision at any point after October 2024 provided it considered it correct to do so. Any decision to stop the provision because the Council considered the EHC Plan provision had been fulfilled would be a merits decision the Council would be entitled to make. However, the Council should make such a decision in the correct manner and consider the relevant criteria.
42. The Council’s Education service was consistent in its decision making that it was not responsible for funding Y’s Section H2 mentoring provision. The Education Panel decisions presented their rationale that this provision was a social care provision and this rationale is supported through inclusion of this provision with Section H2 rather than Section F. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision making about not funding this provision through its Education service.
43. The Council’s Childrens Social Care Team was in clear in its thinking that Y needed the mentoring provision outlined in the EHC Plan and that Y’s educational placement would be unlikely to replace this provision. This Childrens Social Care Team was also clear the professionals had not got Y’s transition plan right. And, the Council needed to complete a review of Y’s EHC Plan because it believed this provision should be for Education services to fund. The Council’s Childrens Social Care Team stopped funding this provision because it believed another service should fund it and Y was no longer at the threshold for needing a Child In Need Plan. The Childrens Social Care Team did not decide to stop funding because Y no longer needed this provision. There was therefore fault in the way the Council made its decision to stop funding for this provision through its Children’s Social Care Team from mid-February 2025.
44. When the Council produced an amended Final EHC Plan for Y in March 2025, the Council brought its full thinking together from the different departments. The Council decided to remove the Section H2 provision and not replace this within Section F. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make and ended its fault from the previous decision making made in isolation by separate departments. Once the Council removed this provision from Y’s EHC Plan it no longer had a duty to provide Y with this provision.
45. From mid-February 2025 to production of the amended Final EHC Plan, Ms X funded the mentoring provision herself, costing £410.71. The Council should provide a rebate to Ms X for this mentoring provision cost she incurred because during this time it was still under a duty to provide this provision according to Y’s EHC Plan.

Complaint handling

46. Within the Council’s stage one complaint response it has already acknowledged the delays in providing this response. Overall, the Council’s response at stage one was about five weeks outside its standard timescales for response and outside the extended timescales the Council advised Ms X it would meet. This was fault.
47. When the Council did issue the stage one complaint response it contained some factual inaccuracies about dates of meetings and events happening out of order; this was fault.
48. Within the Council’s stage two complaint response, it also apologised for the delay in responding to Ms X’s request for consideration at stage two. The Council’s response at stage two was about one week outside its complaint timescales; this was fault. The Council’s stage two complaint response also contained some inaccuracies about events happening out of order; this was fault.
49. The Council’s total delay of six weeks outside its complaint timescales and factual inaccuracies within the complaint responses would have caused Ms X distress, inconvenience and frustration.

Back to top

Action

50. Within one month of the Ombudsman’ final decision the Council will:
• Provide an apology to Ms X for the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused through prematurely ending the funding for the Section H2 Education, Health and Care Plan provision, its complaint handling delays and inaccurate information detailed within its stage one complaint response. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Provide a payment to Ms X of £410.71 to refund the costs she incurred sourcing mentoring provision for her child from the end of the funding by the Council in February 2025 until it produced an amended Final Education, Health and Care Plan in March 2025, when it removed this provision from the plan.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman