Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to implement adaptations that were required for Y to access school. As a result, Mrs X says Y could not engage in activities with his peers. The Council was not at fault for delay in implementing the adaptations. The Council was at fault for communication failures, but it has already taken action to remedy the resulting injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to implement adaptations to her son Y’s school that were identified as necessary and agreed during his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review. As a result, Mrs X says Y has been unable to engage in activities with his peers and has not had access to appropriate facilities.

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 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

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 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 policy

7. A child or young person with special educational needs (SEN) may have an 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. 
8. 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

9. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mrs X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
10. Y has SEN and his education is supported by an EHC Plan which names School A.
11. During a review of Y’s EHC Plan in September 2024, School A informed the Council that as Y was growing it was becoming difficult for him to access certain facilities within the school and provided a letter from an Occupational Therapist to support this.
12. The Council considered the information it was provided, and in October 2024, it agreed adaptation work to School A would need to be completed. The Council said this would be funded using its 2025/26 financial year budget with two aspects of the work to be completed in the two-week school break after the 2025 spring term, and another aspect to be completed in the May 2025 half term.
13. In November 2024, School A provided the Council with quotes for the works to be completed. The Council agreed to the quotes in principal and explained this would be subject to approval for funding in the new year.
14. In January 2025, the Council issued Y’s EHC Plan naming School A and setting out the adaptation work that was required for him to fully access the school.
15. In February 2025 the Council informed School A that funding was approved. The Council explained that as School A had sourced the quotes itself, it expected School A to manage the project. However, School A wanted the Council to take responsibility for managing the project and it proceeded to source its own quotes.
16. The Council decided on which contractors to use by March 2025.
17. During the two-week break after the 2025 Spring term, two aspects of the work were carried out as planned. One of these aspects was completed, however one aspect was delayed due to the contractor delivering the wrong site fixing.
18. The correct parts were received at the end of April 2025, but School A said it could not accommodate access for the contractors during term time, so this was rescheduled to be completed after the summer term had ended.
19. The aspect of the work scheduled to be completed during the May 2025 half term went ahead and was completed as planned.
20. The delayed aspect of the work was completed in the summer holidays, prior to Y returning to School A in September 2025.

Analysis

21. The Council was informed School A needed adaptations to accommodate Y in September 2024. The Council agreed to the adaptation works in October 2024 and set out the expected timeframe for the work to be completed. The Council appears to have promptly acknowledged the need for adaptations and agreed works to be done with the expected timeframe. I do not find fault with the process the Council followed up to that point.
22. In January 2025 the Council issued Y’s finalised EHC Plan, which listed the adaptations and placed it under an obligation to complete these. The Council has explained School A could not accommodate contractors during term time, so it continued to work on the timeframe that was agreed in October 2024. I can understand the frustration that this work was not completed immediately, but I do not find the Council at fault here.
23. Two aspects of the work were fully completed in line with the timeframe the Council set out in October 2024, and I do not find it at fault for delay here. There was a delay of a school term in completing one aspect of the work, however this was down to the contractor sending the wrong site fixings. I appreciate this would have been frustrating for Y and Mrs X, but it was outside of the Council’s control and rectified once School A could grant access to the contractors, so I do not find the Council at fault for the delay here.
24. While I do not find the Council at fault for delay in completing the work, there were several communication issues throughout the process. When the Council agreed the work there was miscommunication between it and School A as to who would be responsible for managing the project. This created a delay in securing contractors to complete the work which amounts to fault. While it did not ultimately result in delaying the project beyond the original timeframes, it caused confusion and uncertainty which is injustice. During that time, the Council also appears to have failed to keep Mrs X updated on what was happening. This would have further added to her uncertainty, which is injustice. However, the Council has already apologised for this injustice, and I find that to be suitable action.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find no fault with the Council for delay in completing the work. I find the Council at fault for communication failings, but I find the Council has already completed action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman