Summary: We found fault with the Council failing to ensure Mr X’s child received their full Education, Health and Care Plan provision from February 2025 until the end of 2025. We also found fault with the Council delaying confirming the outcome of its safeguarding enquiries with Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and pay him a symbolic payment of £750 for the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to monitor and ensure delivery of his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan provision for 32.5 hours per week one-to-one support. Mr X says this has been ongoing for the past three years.
2. Mr X also complained the Council failed to take suitable safeguarding action about the school in response to the concerns he raised.

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. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools unless it relates to special educational needs, when the schools are acting on behalf of the council to secure educational provision as set out in Section F of the young person’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
7. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
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 concerns about delivery of his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan provision and safeguarding concerns from the start of the academic year 2024/2025 until the end of 2025.
11. I have not investigated matters before the academic year 2024/2025 because Mr X did not approach the Ombudsman until September 2025 with his complaint. The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints about matters a person takes more than 12 months to bring to our attention. Mr X says his child has not received the correct support for three years and would, therefore, have been aware of this. There is no good reason Mr X could not have brought his complaint to the Council or Ombudsman sooner. While I have not investigated matters before September 2024, I have referenced relevant points before this date for context.
12. I have ended my investigation from January 2026. This is because the Council issued its final complaint response in July 2025. The Ombudsman must normally give a council opportunity to respond to a complaint before we investigate. However, the issues until the end of December 2025 form an extension of the same concerns Mr X raised up to the complaint response in July 2025. I have not investigated matters after January 2026. This is because Mr X rejected the Educational Psychologist input; this creates a significant enough change in circumstances to justify the need for a new complaint to, and opportunity to respond by, the Council.
13. I have not investigated Mr X’s concerns about the Council obstructing his General Data Protection Regulation rights as this is a matter for the Information Commissioners Office.
14. I have also not investigated Mr X’s complaints about how his child’s school used Council funding. Schools are outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. While we will look at how the school, on behalf of the Council, delivered Mr X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan provision we cannot look at allocation of funding by the school.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
16. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Rules and Regulations

Education, Health and Care Plans

17. 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. 
18. 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)  
19. 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. 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; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

Child Protection

20. Anyone who has concerns about a child’s welfare should make a referral to children’s social care and should do so immediately if there is a concern that the child is suffering significant harm or is likely to do so.
21. The council should make initial enquiries of agencies involved with the child and family, for example, health visitor, GP, schools and nurseries. The information gathering at this stage enables the council to assess the nature and level of any harm the child may be facing. The assessment may result in:

• no further action;
• a decision to carry out a more detailed assessment of the child’s needs; or
• a decision to convene a strategy meeting.

22. The Council must inform a child and of the action it plans to take.
23. If the Council decides to take further action, this can lead to Section 47 formal enquiries. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
24. Complaints procedure
25. The Council has a two stage complaints process.
26. At stage one the Council says it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days and provide a complaint response within 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The Council says it will tell someone if it needs to extend the response timescale this will be no longer than 10 working days.
27. If a person chooses to escalate a complaint to stage two, the Council will again acknowledge the request within five working days. The Council says it will provide a response at stage two within 20 working days but may extend this timescale if needed and explain the revised timeframe to a person.

What happened

28. In March 2022, the Council issued the first EHC Plan for Mr X’s child, Y.
29. The Council issued an amended EHC Plan for Y in March 2023. The Council included within this amended EHC Plan the following information about Y’s Section F provision:
• 32.5 hours of individual adult support from a suitably experienced person. The EHC Plan confirmed this support for Y should be delivered in both the classroom and break-time and was for the full school week.
• The extra supervision and support at break and lunch times would only need to be as required.
• Y to have daily opportunities to work in a small group facilitated by an adult of about 10-15 minutes each day and further access to small group learning on a daily basis.
• Support at play times to engage in play activities with other children.
30. In March 2024, the Council held an annual review meeting for Y’s EHC Plan. There were no concerns about provision of the individual adult support for Y. The Council issued an amended final EHC Plan in June 2024 but kept the same wording for the individual adult support for Y.
31. In February 2025, Mr X told the Council he did not consider Y’s school was providing 32.5 hours of individual adult support for Y. Mr X said the school told him it was not providing the support because the funding from the Council was not enough.
32. The Council issued an updated final EHC Plan for Y in May 2025, following an annual review meeting in March 2025. This updated final EHC Plan kept the same wording for Y’s individual adult support.
33. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council in May 2025. Mr X said:
• Y’s school had not delivered the 32.5 hours of individual adult support since production of the first EHC Plan in March 2022.
• He had repeatedly raised this with Y’s school but it had not put the provision in place.
• The Council failed to intervene to enforce the full provision from Y’s EHC Plan.
• He was concerned about Y being subject to injuries in school because of this lack of individual adult support and considered this a safeguarding matter.
34. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint the same day.
35. At the start of June 2025, the Council requested information from Y’s school about provision of Y’s EHC Plan.
36. The Council provided its stage one complaint response to Mr X. The Council said:
• It had been providing funding to Y’s school for the 32.5 hours of individual adult support. Y’s school has flexibility about how to use this funding to ensure support is in place.
• It was investigating how Y’s school was implementing Y’s EHC Plan provision and would provide an update to Mr X once it receives a response.
37. Mr X responded to the Council on the same date. Mr X said the Council had failed to ensure Y received the full EHC Plan provision. Mr X wanted an explanation about how this had happened and evidence to show the correct funding was in place. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s contact but did not treat this as a formal stage two request.
38. The Council held a meeting with Y’s school in June 2024 and discussed Y’s EHC Plan provision and discussed the need for access to safeguarding records. The Council also asked Mr X to provide consent to access Y’s full records so it could complete a full safeguarding investigation. Mr X did not provide consent for a full investigation.
39. Following the meeting, Y’s school provided an intervention map to the Council with a breakdown of how it used the funding from the Council. The intervention map showed the school provided the following support for Y across a 32.5hour school week:
• 19 hours and 40 minutes of one-to-one support.
• 4 hours and 25 minutes of one-to-three support.
• 4 hours and 35 minutes, comprised of lunchtimes only, of adult support as required.
• 3 hours and 50 minutes, comprised of break time and Physical Education, without any noted adult support.
40. The school also provided its incident and safeguarding information about Y.
41. The Council provided a response to Mr X. The Council said:
• It had not yet completed a review of the full safeguarding concerns because Mr X had not provided full consent to do so. Given Mr X’s conditional consent it had only taken limited actions to the extent this allows.
• It had reviewed Y’s EHC Plan provision with the school and had no concerns about the funding provided to the school or how the school fulfilled the plan.
42. In June 2025, Mr X made a request for a formal stage two response from the Council. Mr X said:
• The school had not delivered Y’s individual adult support since 2023. Mr X said the Council had failed to intervene or monitor the support.
• Y has sustained at least fourteen injuries while at school with a serious safeguarding breach during a school trip. The Council had not made a Section 47 enquiry despite this.
• The Council refused to disclose certain information Mr X had requested, including about Teaching Assistant assignments, payroll information and timesheets.
43. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s stage two request the following day.
44. The Council’s internal records show it noted it had no concerns with any safeguarding issues for Y at the school based on the review of the incident logs and safeguarding information provided by the school in the absence of full consent from Mr X.
45. At the end of June 2025, the Council told Mr X it would need a further twenty working days to provide its stage two response.
46. At the end of July 2025, the Council issued a formal stage two complaint response to Mr X. The Council said:
• It apologised for the delay in providing its stage two complaint response.
• There is no lawful basis on which it could share timesheets and payroll information with Mr X.
• It was satisfied Y’s school was implementing Y’s EHC Plan in line with its legal duties.
• The school had shared all safeguarding logs and relevant risk assessments with Mr X and the Council. The Council said it did not have any concerns regarding safeguarding at the school.
• The Council directed Mr X to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman with his complaint.
47. In October 2025, Mr X reiterated concerns with the school about the lack of individual adult support for Y. Mr X, the Council and Y’s school liaised about the support. The school confirmed it was taking a team-based approach to supporting Y which Mr X disputed. The Council proposed a visit from an Educational Psychologist to assess Y and provide advice about the support Y needs. Mr X declined the Educational Psychologist in December 2025 unless certain conditions could be met.

Analysis

EHC Plan

48. A council must ensure delivery of a child’s EHC Plan provision, including through delegation to other bodies. However, the Ombudsman does not expect the Council to keep a watching brief of a child’s delegated provision. The Council should review delivery of provision once each year at an annual review and investigate concerns raised with it.
49. The Council kept Mr X’s child’s EHC Plan under review at each annual review meeting before Mr X’s first contact with the Council to raise concerns in February 2025. No concerns were raised at any annual review meeting about provision of Y’s EHC Plan. Given the lack of contact to raise concerns with the Council and its yearly oversight through annual reviews, I do not find fault with the Council from September 2025 until February 2025.
50. Mr X contacted the Council in February 2025 to raise concerns about delivery of the EHC Plan Section F provision. The Council did not act on Mr X’s contact until Mr X raised a formal complaint in May 2025. This inaction for three months was fault.
51. Following Mr X’s complaint, the Council investigated Mr X’s concerns and got a provision map from the school. This provision map confirmed Y’s school provided 19 hours and 40 minutes of one-to-one support, 4 hours and 25 minutes of one-to-three support, 4 hours and 35 minutes of adult support as required during lunch breaks. This left 3 hours and 50 minutes of the 32.5 hours school week without any support noted.
52. Y’s EHC Plan is specific that Y should receive individual adult support for 32.5 hours each week. Y received 19 hours and 40 minutes of this each week and I do not find fault with this provision. However, the school did not provide the remaining 12 hours and 50 minutes as individual adult support on a one-to-one basis.
53. I do not consider the Council is at fault for Y missing 12 hours and 50 minutes of one-to-one support each week. This because Y’s EHC Plan has other Section F provisions which need to be read alongside this 32.5hours of individual support.
54. Y’s EHC Plan provides expectation that Y should access daily small group work facilitated by an adult. It is acceptable to read that this daily group work needed to come out of the 32.5 hours of individual support. This is because it would not be expected for Y to access more than 32.5 hours of education each week. 4 hours and 25 minutes of small group learning across a week is consistent with Y’s EHC Plan and I do not find fault with this provision.
55. Y’s EHC Plan also advised that Y’s lunchtime and break-time support is only needed as required. This is consistent with the progression map provided by the school for lunchtimes amounting to 4 hours and 35 minutes each week. As above, this comes out of the 32.5 hours school week.
56. However, there are 3 hours and 50 minutes of each 32.5 hour school week in which Y’s school did not provide any support for Y. This was for Y’s break-time, with no record of support as required being available, and during Physical Education lessons.
57. The Council was entitled to decide about the suitability of how the school delivered Y’s EHC Plan provision, provided this was in line with Y’s EHC Plan. The progression map and delivery outlined in paragraphs 52, 54 and 55 are merits decisions open to the Council. As is the delivery of Y’s individual adult support through a team-based approach rather than through one individual member of staff.
58. However, the Council’s decision that the school was providing Y’s full EHC Plan provision correctly was erroneous. The evidence provided by the school failed to account for 3 hours and 50 minutes of the school week. During this time, Y received no adult support despite individual adult support being the default position from Y’s EHC Plan. Failure to ensure delivery of Y’s EHC Plan for 3 hours and 50 minutes each week was fault.
59. This fault caused Y to miss suitable provision as outlined in their EHC Plan. The Council was at fault for the lack of delivery of this provision from February 2025, when Mr X first contacted the Council with his concerns, until the end of December 2025, when I have ended my investigation.

Safeguarding

60. Following Mr X raising safeguarding concerns about Y at the school, the Council made initial enquiries of the school and asked Mr X to provide consent for a full safeguarding investigation.
61. The Council only got relevant information and incident logs from the school in the absence of consent from Mr X to take further action. I do not find fault with the Council for this.
62. The Council used this information to decide that it need not take any further action because there were no concerns about safeguarding Y at the school. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make and it did so in line with the relevant guidance and legislation.
63. While the Council made this decision in a relatively short timescale, it failed to confirm the outcome of its decision with Mr X for a further month and a half. This delay was fault causing uncertainty to Mr X.

Complaint handling

64. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s stage one complaint within five working days and provided the full stage one response within ten working days of the acknowledgement. The Council met its complaint timescales and I do not find fault.
65. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s stage two request within five working days and then advised it would issue the complaint response within twenty working days two weeks later. The Council explained the extended timescale to Mr X in line with its policy and I do not find fault. However, the Council missed the extended deadline by one working day; this was fault.
66. The Council acknowledged this fault in its stage two complaint response and apologised for this. I do not consider the Council need take any further action to address this fault.

Back to top

Action

67. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council will:
• Provide Mr X with an apology for the impact on Mr X’s child for failure to ensure they received their full Education, Health and Care Plan provision from February 2025 to the end of 2025 and for the uncertainty caused to Mr X for the delay in confirming the safeguarding enquiry outcome.
• Provide a payment to Mr X of £750 as a symbolic gesture for his child’s missed Education, Health and Care Plan provision from February 2025 until the end of 2025.
68. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

69. 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