Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to provide him with the provision specified in his Education, Health and Care Plan. We found there was fault by the Council that caused injustice to Mr X and his mother, Mrs Y. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s failure to provide him with training, independence skills and support for his special needs as set out in his Education, Health and Care Plan during the 2024/2025 academic year. He also complains about poor communication.
2. This caused distress and frustration to both Mr X and his mother, Mrs Y. They say this lack of provision also impacted on Mr X’s future prospects and well-being.
3. Mr X is represented by his mother, Mrs Y, in bringing this complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. 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.
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
9. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about lack of special educational needs provision between September 2024 and March 2025.
11. I have not investigated his complaints about missed provision from March 2025 because the Council issued a final Education, Health and Care Plan which carried a right of appeal. Mr X exercised this right of appeal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mr 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

Education, Health and Care Plans

14. A child or young person with special educational needs (SEN) 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 SEND Tribunal or the council can do this. 
15. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
16. The period that we cannot investigate ends when the tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded. 
17. 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)

What happened

18. Below is a summary of the key events leading to this investigation. It is not an exhaustive chronology of every exchange between parties. Where necessary, I have expanded on some of these events in the “Analysis” section of this decision statement.
19. Mr X, a young man in his twenties, has special educational needs and an EHC Plan. He was on the roll of a mainstream further educational college (College B).
20. Mr X’s EHC Plan specified that he should receive (in addition to other provision that it not necessary for me to detail here):

• A weekly formal review with a success coach.
• A weekly formal review with a skills and employability trainer.
• Practical interactive sessions (two to three times per week).
• Shadowing opportunities (two to three times per week).
• Opportunities to develop independence skills.
• Two days of vocational workshop sessions.
• Provision of a designated trusted adult on a daily basis.

21. Both Mr X and Mrs Y were dissatisfied with both the quantity and quality of support he received in these, and other areas of provision, since September 2024. This was the subject of a formal complaint to the Council in October 2024. Whilst the complaint handling was ongoing, an annual review was held in February 2025. College D reported that Mr X had met, or was on course to meet, many of the objectives set out his EHC Plan. Mrs X strongly disagreed with this assessment.
22. Shortly after the annual review, the Council issued an amended Final EHC Plan. Mr X lodged an appeal with the SEND Tribunal about the content of this Plan in July 2025.
23. The Council partially upheld Mr X’s complaint having accepted there had been some lack of provision and there had been miscommunication during the annual review process. The Council apologised for these faults. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She believed the Council should have fully upheld the complaint and properly acknowledged the impact the loss of provision had had on Mr X’s well-being and future prospects.

Analysis

24. It is not our role to consider the internal actions of colleges as they are not in our remit to investigate. We investigate the administrative actions of the Council. With this in mind, I acknowledge that the Council was, to a certain extent, limited in the action it could take. This was because the daily management of Mr X’s education was delegated to the College D, and it held a different view about the support being offered to Mr X, as well as the progress Mr X was making, to that held by Mrs Y.
25. However, the Council had an absolute and non-delegable duty to secure Mr X’s Section F, EHC Plan provision. While it was to be delivered by College D, the Council was ultimately responsible for ensuring Mr Y’s provision was in place. This did not happen.
26. We do not expect a council to maintain a watching brief to ensure every child or young person with an EHC Plan in its area is receiving their special educational provision. However, we do expect councils to take swift action if they become aware provision is not being delivered. In this case, I am satisfied Mrs Y notified the Council at an early stage that she believed Mr X’s EHC Plan was not being fulfilled in several areas.
27. In her submissions to the Ombudsman, Mrs Y has provided detailed analysis as to why she believes the Council failed to meet its statutory obligations. Having considered this evidence, and that provided by the Council, I am satisfied that whilst Mr X attended college on a full-time basis between September 2024 and March 2025, he did not receive all of the support set out in the EHC Plan. The Council has already accepted in its complaint responses that Mr X did not have access to a success coach, skills and employability trainer and did not always receive the correct amount of vocational training. There is also uncertainty about whether other areas of Mr X’s EHC Plan were fulfilled. My overall assessment that the Council was at fault for failing to fulfil the entirety of Mr X’s EHC Plan.
28. The purpose of this provision was to increase Mr X’s independence and enable him gain full time employment when was due to leave college in 2026. Mrs Y says Mr X’s chances of doing so have been negatively affected by the lack of support. It is not possible for say with any degree of certainty whether this was the case but, on balance, I am satisfied Mr X’s loss of provision has created uncertainty as to whether his future prospects could have been different had all the provision he was entitled to been in place. This is relevant to my recommendations below.
29. The Ombudsman has published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred.
30. Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational/SEN provision, we normally recommend a remedy payment of between £800 and £2400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The figure is based on the circumstances of each case, to reflect the particular impact on that young person.
31. Given Mr X’s age, the stage of his education and the support he missed, I consider a payment of £800 per term would be appropriate for the autumn term of 2024 and part of the spring term of 2025 (up to the time his appeal right arose). I also consider it is appropriate to make an additional payment to Mrs Y to acknowledge the distress and frustration she experienced as a result of the loss of provision and her time and trouble raising this issue with the Council.
32. I have not found fault with the Council’s communications with Mrs Y during the period of time I have investigated. The evidence I have seen shows the Council generally responded to her concerns in a timely manner. It is my view that her frustration was caused primarily by her son’s lack of provision, as opposed to poor communications.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. Within four weeks from the date of my final decision, the Council agreed to take the following action.
1. Apologise to Mr X and Mrs Y for the injustice caused by the above faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Pay Mr X £1200 to recognise the failure to provide vocational and SEN support set out in his EHC Plan.
3. Pay Mrs Y £200 to recognise her distress and frustration caused by the lack of provision.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to remedy the injustice to Mr X and Mrs Y. On this basis, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman