Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to deliver specialist education to his daughter, Y. We have found fault because the Council did not have oversight of the provision in place and failed to organise psychoeducation specified in her Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mr X and Y avoidable distress and frustration. The Council has suggested a remedy for the lost provision and linked frustration. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and Y, make a payment to Mr X, organise appropriate provision and review some of its practices and procedures linked to oversight.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to deliver psychoeducation (PE) provision listed in his daughter, Y's, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan from August 2024 onwards.
2. He says this has caused him avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. He says Y has missed out on specialist education she was due.

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. Mr X brought his complaint to us in August 2025. My investigation begins 12 months before this, in August 2024. It ends when Mr X brought his complaint to us.
7. Mr X appealed to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND)) Tribunal (the Tribunal) about various parts of Y’s EHC Plan in September 2023 and before the period of this investigation. At this time, PE was not in Y’s plan. Mr X’s appeal did not seek to have this included. The Council added PE to Y’s EHC Plan in March 2024.
8. Due to miscommunication between the Tribunal and Mr X, his appeal was not then heard until June 2025. The Tribunal then considered whether to specify PE as provision in the plan. The Tribunal decision was issued in November 2025. As a result of this, the Council issued an amended EHC Plan in December 2025.
9. I am satisfied that as PE was added to Y’s EHC Plan by the Council and it was not part of Mr X’s original appeal to the Tribunal, this is a separate matter to the original appeal. I therefore consider it appropriate to include PE and its delivery as part of this investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I have considered all the information Mr X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
11. Mr 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

12. 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.
13. The Tribunal considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. 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. 
14. 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) 
15. 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.
16. However, 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.

What happened

17. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
18. Before the period of my investigation, Y had an EHC Plan in place. She was attending a specialist education provision, School A, which was listed in the plan. Y has a range of diagnoses which contribute to her EHC Plan. PE was added to Section F of Y’s plan when it was amended in March 2024.
19. March 2024’s EHC Plan set out that Y should have:
• assessment to determine Y’s understanding of her diagnoses;
• one-to-one support to access PE and to help her understand her diagnoses;
• approaches to help develop strategies to manage everyday life;
• follow up sessions to reinforce learning and provide any additional support required; and
• a member of staff to deliver PE who had access to at least 10 hours of training.
20. Y’s EHC Plan also said the PE intervention was only beneficial if it respected Y’s capacity for engagement. It said regular evaluation and feedback from Y was needed to ensure it was effective and responded to her needs.

August 2024 onwards

21. In mid-August 2024, Y’s EHC plan was again updated. In relation to this complaint, Section F was changed to specify who should deliver the PE intervention to her. This changed to pastoral care staff rather than a teacher or learning support assistant, as before.
22. Y’s EHC Plan was reviewed in January 2025. The Council made the decision to amend the plan.
23. The Council issued an amended EHC Plan at the beginning of April 2025. The wording for PE provision stayed the same. The plan changed who should deliver it to be either pastoral staff, a teacher or a learning support assistant.
24. In mid-May 2025, Mr X complained to the Council. He said that in a recent child protection conference about Y, School A confirmed it was not delivering any PE provision to her. Mr X said the provision had been in the plan since August 2024 and Y’s school should be delivering it. Mr X said this raised questions about the Council’s oversight of the EHC Plan and what was being delivered.
25. The Council sent its stage one response at the beginning of June 2025. This said:
• it had investigated matters with both health professionals and school;
• health professionals believed it would be difficult for Y to be the one to initiate changes and that PE had been removed from all of the health advice on this basis;
• school confirmed Y had refused to engage with direct therapy work on a number of occasions;
• although the Council was ultimately responsible for the PE provision being delivered to Y, a school was given the finances and would be expected to review the support for a child throughout the year. The Council said School A had evidenced this; and
• it noted Y’s EHC Plan had explicitly stated PE was only beneficial if it respected Y’s capacity for engagement.
26. The Council ended its response by stating that while elements of Y’s PE provision had been delivered directly or indirectly through a variety of approaches, it had not been delivered in line with her Section F provision. The Council again noted that the provision would not have been of benefit to Y at the time. The Council apologised, partially upheld the complaint and said that when challenges around delivering PE had been identified, it should have been notified so it could review the situation and make amendments accordingly.
27. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two and questioned why PE had remained in the most recent EHC Plan if it was no longer seen as beneficial to her.
28. The Council responded at the beginning of July 2025. It reiterated much of its stage one response. It said it monitored the delivery of provision as part of the statutory review cycle but expected a school to inform it if there were any issues with Section F provision being delivered to the named child. It said that it was not aware until the review meeting at the beginning of May 2025. The Council signposted Mr X to us.

After my investigation

29. Although the wording has slightly changed from previous plans, PE provision is still specified in Section F of Y’s current EHC Plan.
30. Mr X has confirmed that there is still no PE provision in place for Y as of late May 2026.

Analysis

31. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it was first made aware Y was not receiving PE provision in a review meeting early in May 2025. The Council explained it had contacted School A and health professionals after this, to seek further information. I agree that when the Council was made aware, it took action to investigate what the situation was.
32. The Council also said Y’s support package was regularly reviewed at meetings about her which took place every four to six weeks. Evidence shows School A attended most of the meetings held between August 2024 and March 2025. There is no evidence of School A specifically discussing Y’s Section F PE provision before May 2025’s review meeting. Nor is there any evidence of the Council checking on Section F delivery in the meetings School A attended.
33. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had reviewed its complaint responses at both stage one and two of its process. It decided a financial remedy was warranted due to the identified gap in Y’s Section F provision and for the frustration caused by this. It said that Y had not received PE provision ‘strictly as specified’. I refer to the offer below.
34. Not delivering Y’s PE provision as set out in Section F of her EHC Plan was fault. The Council had a non-delegable duty to ensure the provision was delivered. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration. It meant Y lost out on the opportunity to access the specified provision. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Checking on Section F delivery

35. We do not expect councils to keep a watching brief over EHC Plan delivery. However, we do expect them to have oversight to check Section F provision is being delivered for new and amended plans, when a child moves to a new placement or to quickly act on concerns that provision is not in place.
36. I acknowledge the Council acted to investigate Mr X’s complaints at the time and has now changed its stance on how it views the matter.
37. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained in detail how it reacts when issues about provision are raised. However, it does not proactively check Section F of a new or amended EHC Plan is being successfully delivered. It said that on reflection, a more robust process needs to be in place to follow up with providers about delivery of Section F provision when a child transitions into a new setting. The Council explained its SEND service was discussing this with the aim of setting up a new process for its EHC Plan coordinators to follow from September 2026 onwards. The Council said that in the meantime it was reminding providers of the importance of open communication when Section F issues arise.
38. I welcome the Council’s actions in setting up a new process. However, this will only cover instances where the child has moved into a new setting, not for new plans or existing plans which have been amended. It will still rely on existing settings to tell the Council if there are issues delivering Section F of a new or amended plan. Not having processes in place for this is fault. It caused Mr X avoidable distress and frustration. I have made a recommendation below to remedy the injustice.

The Council’s suggested remedy

39. In response to my enquiries, the Council offered a suggested remedy of £600 per term to reflect the loss of Y’s PE provision. It did this for the five and a half terms at School A beginning May 2024 to March 2026. The Council also suggested an additional remedy of £450 to recognise the frustration caused and £250 for the time and trouble the family faced in seeking resolution. The remedy offer covers time periods both before, during and after my investigation.
40. I welcome the Council’s remedy offer. I am satisfied the symbolic payment of £600 per term is appropriate to remedy the lost provision and linked injustice. I make a recommendation below to remedy the injustice caused during my investigation period only.

Back to top

Agreed action

41. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Mr X and Y for the identified injustice; and
• make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £1800 to recognise the lack of Y’s EP provision in the academic year September 2024 to July 2025. This is at £600 per term for the investigation period as per the Council’s suggested remedy. This is to reflect lost provision and linked distress and frustration.
42. It is open to the Council to offer the other elements of its suggested remedy to Mr X which are outside the period of my investigation.
43. Within six weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to ensure Y’s Section F PE provision is arranged to start in September 2026 when she moves to a new placement.
44. Within three months of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to review current practice and implement processes to ensure it has oversight to check Section F provision is being delivered for new and amended EHC Plans or when a change in setting takes place.
45. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
46. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

48. 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