Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to secure all the special educational provision in Y’s EHC Plan, for not properly assessing whether the education arranged for him was suitable overall, and for shortcomings in its transport decision-making and communication between services. This caused Y a loss of provision and caused Mrs X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council accepted our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to ensure Y received a suitable education and the special educational provision set out in his Plan during 2025. She says he has received limited tutoring hours and that elements described as part of an interim package were not put in place. Mrs X also complains the Council did not make transport arrangements which enabled him to access provision, particularly as he approached post-16, and that there were failings in communication and coordination between Council services. Mrs X says this caused her and her son distress and uncertainty and resulted in loss of education.

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. 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)
3. 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)
4. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

Education Health and Care Plans

7. A child with special educational needs may have an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
8. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in their 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)  

Alternative provision

9. Councils must “make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.” (Education Act 1996, section 19(1))
10. The statutory guidance says the duty to provide a suitable education applies “to all children of compulsory school age resident in the council area, whether or not they are on the roll of a school, and whatever type of school they attend”.
11. Suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have. (Education Act 1996, section 19(6))
12. The education provided by the council must be full-time unless the council determines that full-time education would not be in the child’s best interests for reasons of the child’s physical or mental health.
13. The law does not define full-time education but children with health needs should have provision which is equivalent to the education they would receive in school. If they receive one-to-one tuition, for example, the hours of face-to-face provision could be fewer as the provision is more concentrated. (Statutory guidance, ‘Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs’)

Back to top

What happened

14. I have included some of the key events below. This is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that took place.
15. Y has special educational needs and an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. During the period considered in this complaint, he was not attending a school or college placement and received education through the Council’s Interim Provision Service (IPS).
16. In late 2024, the Council referred Y to IPS. It told Mrs X the service would arrange an education package which could include tuition, farm-based provision and potentially work experience.
17. In early January 2025, Mrs X contacted the Council about Y’s tuition, transport and possible work-experience opportunities. The Council’s records show there was uncertainty between services about responsibility for arranging and funding transport.
18. During January and February, Y received some farm-based provision. Mrs X says he initially attended Hale Farm before transferring to South Brockwell Farm, and that the transfer caused some disruption. Toward the end of January, Y began tuition with Bright Teach.
19. In early March, South Brockwell Farm ended Y’s placement following concerns about his behaviour. Y’s tuition continued and the Council began looking for alternative provision.
20. Around the same time, an Interim Education Meeting took place. The record said Y was receiving tuition at a library, that concerns remained about his mental health and isolation, and that alternative farm provision was being explored. It also recorded Mrs X as saying the support and education were sufficient at that stage. Mrs X disputes that this accurately reflected her view. She says she considered the tuition itself was going well but did not consider the overall amount of education sufficient.
21. In mid-March, the Council issued an amended EHC Plan. Section F provided for six hours of Bright Teach tuition and six hours at South Brockwell Farm each week, with the arrangements to be reviewed as appropriate.
22. Between March and June, Y continued receiving tuition but did not attend farm provision. IPS and the Council explored alternatives, including Little Gate Farm. Y’s tuition later increased to seven hours each week.
23. In early June, a further Interim Education Meeting took place. The record said Y was making progress, particularly in mathematics, and that practical courses and a trial at Little Gate Farm were being explored. It again recorded Mrs X as considering the support and education sufficient at that stage, although she disputes that this meant she considered the overall amount of education sufficient.
24. In mid-June, Little Gate Farm offered Y a short trial. Mrs X said she could take Y to an initial visit but could not provide regular transport because of work commitments. She asked the Council’s education and transport services to coordinate arrangements.
25. Some days later, the Transport Service initially said the placement was not named in Y’s EHC Plan and that it did not usually provide transport for taster days. Following further discussion and escalation, the Council approved transport for the remainder of the academic year.
26. Mrs X complained to the Council in June. She said Y was receiving only seven hours of tuition each week and had not received the wider package of farm provision and work experience she understood the Council would arrange. She also complained about transport and poor communication between Council services.
27. In early July, Y’s Bright Teach tutor withdrew because of concerns about Y’s behaviour. IPS then proposed replacement provision with Up-Grade, expected to begin at eight hours each week.
28. Around the same time, the Council declined Mrs X’s application for post-16 travel assistance from September. It said Y was capable of independent travel and did not meet the gateway criteria in its policy. Mrs X said Y could travel independently to some accessible locations, but not to remote farm provision where there was no suitable public transport.
29. Later in July, Little Gate Farm said it was pausing its alternative education programme from September.
30. Toward the end of July, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It apologised for the delay in arranging tuition, difficulties with transport and shortcomings in communication. It upheld her complaint about the time taken to secure all the provision in Y’s EHC Plan and accepted communication between services had fallen below the expected standard. It said the post-16 transport decision had been made in accordance with its policy.

Response to my enquiries

31. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to the Council. Of note, it said:
• Y was not without suitable education between 1 January and 31 July 2025. It said he received farm-based provision during January and February, including at South Brockwell Farm, and received Bright Teach tuition from 28 January.
• It accepted there was a delay between the referral to IPS and tuition starting. It also accepted there had been a failure to coordinate transport during January and shortcomings in communication between Assessment and Planning, IPS and SEN Transport.
• Y’s South Brockwell Farm placement ended on 3 March because of behavioural concerns. The Council said tuition continued and it actively sought replacement farm provision.
• It said Mrs X confirmed at the March and June Interim Education Meetings that the education and support provided were sufficient at those stages.
• It considered its duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 was engaged throughout the period. It said it monitored the suitability of Y’s education through his engagement, progress, behaviour, parental feedback and Interim Education Meetings.
• It did not amend the EHC Plan immediately after the South Brockwell Farm placement ended because tuition continued, alternative farm provision was being pursued and Y’s arrangements remained under review.
• It said transport to Little Gate Farm was approved on 24 June for the remainder of the academic year, but the provider later paused the provision.
• It said the post-16 transport application was declined because the application indicated Y could travel independently. It said this meant he did not meet the gateway criteria in its policy. The Council said it did not consider independent travel training or other transport support necessary because Y was already capable of independent travel.
• It said senior officers provided oversight following the complaint, responsibilities between services were clarified and the transport issue was escalated.
• It accepted its faults caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty and said it had apologised. It had not considered offering a financial remedy.

Back to top

Analysis

Provision in Y’s EHCP

32. The Council has a duty under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to secure the special educational provision specified in an EHC Plan.
33. The EHC Plan in force at the beginning of 2025 did not contain the same specified package as the amended Plan issued later. However, the Council had already decided tuition would form part of the alternative education arranged for Y through IPS. Y received some farm-based provision in early January, but tuition did not begin until toward the end of that month. The Council accepts there was avoidable delay between the IPS referral and tuition starting. This was fault.
34. Y received some tuition and farm-based provision during this period. In early March, South Brockwell Farm ended his placement because of concerns about his behaviour. His tuition continued, but he did not receive farm-based provision after this point.
35. In mid-March, after the farm placement had ended, the Council issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan. Section F specified six hours of Bright Teach tuition and six hours at South Brockwell Farm each week. The farm provision was expressed as part of Y’s required provision rather than as an aspiration or provision to be arranged if available.
36. The Council therefore issued a final Plan which specified provision it knew was no longer available. It then had a duty to secure the provision in that Plan. Although it explored alternatives, including Little Gate Farm, it did not secure equivalent farm-based provision during the period considered. Looking for replacement provision did not, by itself, satisfy the duty to secure what Section F required. This was fault.
37. The Council says it did not immediately amend the Plan because tuition continued, alternative farm provision was being pursued and Y’s arrangements were under review. However, tuition did not replace the separately specified farm provision. Nor did the Council amend the Plan to reflect the arrangements it was in fact able to provide.
38. By the time the Council issued the final amended Plan, it knew South Brockwell Farm was no longer available. It therefore had an opportunity to revise the proposed provision before finalising the Plan. Once it became clear equivalent provision would not be secured promptly, the Council should also have formally considered whether the Plan remained accurate and deliverable and whether a further amendment was required. Its failure to do so left Y with a Plan which did not reflect the provision available to him.
39. The Council relies on records of the March and June Interim Education Meetings, which say Mrs X considered the education and support sufficient at those stages. Mrs X disputes that interpretation. She says she considered the tuition itself was going well but did not accept that the overall amount of education was sufficient. In any event, her comments did not remove the Council’s duty to secure the provision specified in Section F. The meeting records also show that farm provision remained outstanding and alternatives were still being explored.
40. There is some uncertainty about the precise number of tuition hours Y received each week. The Council says Bright Teach provided six to seven hours, while Mrs X says Y received seven hours and that some sessions did not last their planned duration. I have not seen sufficient evidence to conclude the Council routinely failed to make the specified tuition hours available. Where sessions were shortened because of Y’s engagement or behaviour, this would not necessarily amount to fault by the Council. However, the evidence shows a clear absence of the separately specified farm provision from early March onward.
41. Work experience was discussed as a possible part of the IPS package. However, the final amended EHC Plan did not specify a distinct work-experience placement or number of hours. I therefore do not find that the absence of work experience was, in itself, a failure to secure provision specified in Section F.
42. The Council’s fault meant Y missed a significant part of the special educational provision in his EHC Plan from early March to the end of July 2025. He continued to receive tuition and there is evidence he made some educational progress, so this was not a total loss of education. Nevertheless, he lost the practical, experiential and social element of the package the Council had decided he required. This was an injustice to Y. The uncertainty about when or whether the missing provision would be replaced also caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and distress.

Suitability of Y’s education

43. The Council accepts its duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 was engaged throughout the period considered. It therefore had to arrange suitable education for Y, having regard to his age, ability, aptitude and special educational needs.
44. The evidence shows Y received some education during this period. He attended farm-based provision during January and February, and tuition began toward the end of January. The records show he engaged with tuition and made progress, particularly in mathematics. They also indicate one-to-one teaching was suitable for him and that he may have found a larger group setting difficult.
45. However, after the farm placement ended in early March, Y’s education was largely limited to around six or seven hours of tuition each week. Practical and experiential provision was explored, but was not in place during most of the remaining period.
46. The Council says it assessed the suitability of Y’s education through his engagement, progress, behaviour, parental feedback and Interim Education Meetings. It also relies on records stating Mrs X considered the support and education sufficient at the time of the March and June meetings.
47. Those factors were relevant. However, I have not seen evidence of a clear assessment explaining why the amount and range of education available after early March was suitable overall. In particular, the Council has not shown how it decided that around six or seven hours of tuition each week was appropriate for Y, or recorded a decision that further or full-time education would not have been in his interests because of his needs, health or ability to engage.
48. The fact Y made progress does not, by itself, establish the overall package was suitable. Mrs X disputes that the meeting records show she accepted the limited hours as suitable. She says she was satisfied with aspects of the tuition but consistently considered Y needed more education and broader provision.
49. I do not find Y was without education, or that the tuition he received was unsuitable in itself. However, the Council has not demonstrated that it properly assessed and recorded whether the overall package remained suitable once the farm provision ended. This was fault.
50. This leaves uncertainty about whether Y should have received more education or a broader range of provision during this period. Y lost the opportunity to have the suitability of his overall education properly considered, and Mrs X experienced avoidable uncertainty and frustration.

Transport arrangements

51. The Council accepts there were difficulties coordinating Y’s transport when responsibility for his education moved to IPS in January 2025. Its records show there was uncertainty between services about which team was responsible for arranging and funding transport. This caused delay and confusion for Mrs X. That was fault.
52. The available evidence does not show Y was wholly unable to attend provision because of the January transport difficulties. However, Mrs X had to pursue different services for clarification and experienced avoidable uncertainty about whether Y could access his education. This was an injustice to her.
53. In June, Little Gate Farm offered Y a short trial. Mrs X promptly told the Council she could take Y to the initial visit but could not provide regular transport because of her work commitments. She also explained the farm was in a remote location and was not readily accessible by public transport.
54. The Transport Service initially said the placement was not named in Y’s EHC Plan and that its policy did not usually provide transport for taster days. It then sought information from Assessment and Planning and IPS and escalated the matter. Around a week later, the Council approved transport for the remainder of the academic year.
55. The Council was entitled to seek clarification about the status of the placement and whether its transport policy applied. However, the correspondence shows Mrs X had to prompt coordination between services before a decision was reached. This reflects the wider communication difficulties the Council has accepted. The delay was relatively short and the evidence does not show Y missed a significant amount of Little Gate provision because of it. I therefore do not find this caused a separate significant educational injustice.
56. Mrs X later applied for post-16 transport from September 2025 to enable Y to attend IPS tuition and Little Gate Farm. The Council refused the application because it considered Y capable of travelling independently. It relied on information in the application which said Y could travel by bus to tutoring in Bexhill if he had a bus pass.
57. Mrs X had also explained Y could travel independently only in some circumstances. She distinguished between travelling by bus to an accessible location and travelling to remote farm provision where there was no suitable public transport. The application therefore concerned journeys with different practical requirements.
58. The Council says that, because the application indicated Y could travel independently, he did not meet the gateway criteria in its post-16 transport policy. It also says there was no need to consider independent travel training or other support because Y was already capable of independent travel.
59. The Council was entitled to apply its post-16 transport policy and to take account of Y’s ability to travel independently. However, I have not seen evidence it separately considered whether Y could safely and practically travel to each of the locations covered by the application. In particular, it has not shown it considered whether public transport was available to the farm, whether Y could complete that particular journey independently, or whether refusing assistance would prevent him accessing the provision.
60. The Council appears to have treated Y’s ability to travel independently to one accessible location as determinative of the whole application. It has not demonstrated that it considered the individual circumstances of each journey or whether an alternative form of assistance was appropriate. This was fault in the Council’s decision-making.
61. I cannot conclude this fault caused Y a defined loss of farm provision from September 2025, because Little Gate Farm later paused its programme. However, Y and Mrs X lost the opportunity to have the transport application properly considered against the practical accessibility of each placement. This caused avoidable uncertainty and frustration.

Communication and coordination between services

62. The Council accepts there were shortcomings in communication and coordination between Assessment and Planning, IPS and SEN Transport. It says responsibility for different aspects of Y’s education and transport sat across several services and information was not always shared clearly or promptly.
63. The evidence shows Mrs X repeatedly had to contact different services to establish who was responsible for arranging Y’s provision and transport. She also had to ask services to communicate with each other before decisions were made.
64. There was also uncertainty about the nature of the IPS offer. Mrs X understood the Council had agreed a wider package which could include tuition, farm provision and work experience. Later communications suggested IPS was primarily responsible for tuition, while other elements depended on separate arrangements. The Council did not provide clear and consistent information about these responsibilities.
65. The Council says it later introduced senior oversight, clarified actions between services and escalated transport matters. These were appropriate steps. However, they do not alter the fact that earlier communication and coordination fell below the standard Mrs X was entitled to expect.
66. The failure to coordinate services effectively and provide clear, consistent information was fault. This caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty and required her to repeatedly pursue different Council services. It also reduced her confidence in the Council’s management of Y’s education.

Injustice and remedy

67. Y did not receive the farm-based element of his EHC Plan from early March to the end of July 2025. Although he continued to receive tuition and made some progress, he missed the practical, experiential and social element of the provision the Council had decided he required.
68. There is also uncertainty about whether the limited package available after the farm placement ended was suitable overall. This is because the Council did not clearly assess or record whether Y should have received more education or a broader range of provision.
69. Mrs X experienced avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. She repeatedly had to contact different services to clarify responsibility and pursue decisions about Y’s education and transport.
70. The Council apologised for the administrative faults it identified. That was appropriate and provides some acknowledgement of the injustice caused. However, it does not remedy Y’s loss of special educational provision or fully recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused to Mrs X.
71. I therefore consider a symbolic financial remedy is appropriate for Y’s loss of provision, to be used for his benefit. A separate symbolic payment is also appropriate to recognise Mrs X’s distress, frustration and uncertainty. These payments should reflect the overall injustice and avoid double counting the same impact. In deciding the amount, I have taken account of the length of the shortfall, the nature of the provision Y missed, and the tuition he continued to receive.

Back to top

Agreed actions

72. To remedy injustice, the Council will:
1. Provide an apology to Mrs X for faults identified and the injustice caused. The apology should be in line with our published Guidance on Remedies.
2. Pay Mrs X £1,800, to be used as she sees fit for Y’s benefit, to acknowledge the loss of farm-based special educational provision between early March and the end of July 2025.
3. Pay Mrs X £300 to acknowledge the avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s poor communication, transport decision-making and failure to clearly assess the suitability of Y’s overall education.
73. The Council will complete actions a to c within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council should provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

74. I have found the Council was at fault for failing to secure all the special educational provision in Y’s EHC Plan, for not clearly assessing and recording whether the education arranged for him was suitable overall, and for shortcomings in its transport decision-making and communication between services. These faults caused Y a loss of provision and caused Mrs X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council accepted our recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman