Summary: The Council delayed when arranging interim provision for a young person once their college placement broke down. This meant they did not receive the special educational provision they were entitled to for almost two school terms. The Council also delayed significantly when finalising the amended EHC plan. The Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions set out at the end of this statement.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains the Council failed to secure suitable education after her son’s college placement broke down in January 2025. She says he was without education for around six months, which significantly affected his mental wellbeing. When the Council offered alternatives, Mrs Y says they were unsuitable.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
3. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

What should happen

8. The council has a duty to make sure a child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of 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).
9. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. Following the review meeting the council must issue a decision to either amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
10. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal.
11. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.

What happened

12. Mrs Y has an adult son who I will call Mr W. He is not compulsory school age. Mr W has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan which the Council issued in June 2024. This sets out the college provision Mr W is entitled to.
13. In January 2025 Mr W stopped attending their allocated college as named in Section I of their EHC plan. This was due to the college removing Mr W from the course. Mr W had attended this college for some time.
14. Mrs Y contacted the Council to make a complaint. She said the Council had not offered any interim provision despite having a legal duty to ensure the delivery of the provision in Section F of Mr W’s EHC plan. Mrs Y said the breakdown of the placement was having a significant impact on Mr W’s mental health.
15. Mrs Y asked the Council to review Mr W’s EHC plan. The review went ahead on 19 February 2025.
16. On 20 March 2025 the Council responded to Mrs Y’s complaint. In summary, the Council said:
• It was unable to action a referral for provision until the annual review of Mr W’s EHC plan had taken place in February. Following this, the Council was able to proceed with consultations.
• Availability for alternative provision cannot be guaranteed, and the Council cannot give anticipated timescales for a start date. In the meantime, the Council has made a referral to a Guidance Adviser to discuss short term solutions.
17. On 27 March 2025 the Council decided to fund one term of alternative provision from a provider of education which I will call Provider 1. The Council said Provider 1 could deliver three sessions per week for a total of 15 weeks whilst the Council sourced a long-term placement for Mr W.
18. Despite the agreement to fund the interim provision, Provider 1 said it did not have availability to deliver sessions to Mr W.
19. Following the annual review, the Council decided on 31 March 2025 that it needed to amend Mr W’s EHC plan.
20. On 17 April 2025 the Council met to discuss options for Mr W. It noted Mrs Y’s preference for some sessions from another provider, which I will call Provider 2. The Council did not agree funding for Provider 2 because it said it was not clear what outcomes Mr W could achieve from one term at Provider 2.
21. On 22 May 2025 Provider 1 confirmed it had availability for Mr W to begin sessions for the second half of the summer term. Provider 1 said It could deliver one session per week initially, increasing to two sessions per week by the end of June.
22. After further consideration, the Council decided in June 2025 to fund some sessions from Provider 2 until the end of the school year.
23. Around this time Mr W’s GP submitted a letter to the Council which referred to Mr W’s increased anxiety and suicidal thoughts.
24. Mrs Y emailed the Council on 22 July 2025 to confirm that, despite her best efforts to arrange sessions with Provider 2, it did not respond to her contact and therefore she was unable to secure any sessions before the school year ended.
25. On 28 July 2025 the Council told Mrs Y that it had agreed funding for Provider 1 to continue from September for three sessions per week. Mrs Y responded to say that it may take Mr W some time to increase to three days per week due to him being out of education for a long period and the subsequent impact on his mental health.
26. Dissatisfied with the lack of action taken by the Council to source suitable provision for Mr W, Mrs Y complained again on 6 August 2025. The Council responded on 19 August. In summary it said:
• The Council has quality checked Mr W’s amended EHC plan and it aims to issue a draft copy for comments soon.
• Provider 1 did not have availability for an immediate start, and the Council said online learning for Maths and English was available for Mr W. Provider 1 started its sessions from 7 July 2025.
• The Council has agreed funding for Provider 1 to continue from September. The Council will re-submit another referral for the spring term depending on Mr W’s progress and outcomes.
• The Council apologises for the delay in finalising Mr W’s amended EHC plan which it says was due to the need to obtain updated professional advice.
27. After receiving the final complaint response, Mrs Y approached the LGSCO.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mrs Y and Mr W?

28. When Mr W’s college placement broke down in January 2025, the Council remained under a duty, as per section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014, to secure the special educational provision set out in Section F of Mr W’s EHC Plan.
29. Although the Council arranged an annual review of the EHC Plan in February 2025, the interim provision it subsequently agreed was not delivered as planned due to limited availability from Provider 1. This service failure did not remove the Council’s statutory responsibility and resulted in Mr W experiencing a prolonged period between January and early July 2025 during which time no SEN provision was in place.
30. While Provider 1 began delivering some sessions from 7 July 2025, this was limited to around two sessions per week and reflected what Mr W could manage due to his mental health needs. I therefore consider the primary injustice arose between January and early July 2025, when suitable SEN provision was absent.
31. Furthermore, the Council significantly delayed finalising the amended EHC Plan following the February 2025 annual review. Statutory timescales require councils to notify parents or young people of their decision within four weeks of the review meeting and to issue a final amended plan within eight weeks of the amendment notice. The Council did not meet these timescales. This fault caused avoidable frustration and delayed Mrs Y’s right of appeal.

Back to top

Action

32. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mrs Y and Mr W for the fault identified in this statement. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how councils should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make a symbolic payment of £2,000 to recognise the loss of special educational provision between January and early July 2025. This is in line with the LGSCO’s Remedies Guidance and reflects that the provision Mr W previously accessed at college was part‑time. I have also taken into account that Mr W was not of compulsory school age, while recognising that the impact on his mental health during this period was significant.
• Make a further symbolic payment of £150. This is to reflect the frustration caused by the delayed appeal rights following the Council’s failure to issue a final EHC plan within statutory timescales.
33. Within twelve weeks of our final decision, the Council will also:
• Review its procedures for responding to placement breakdowns. This is to ensure the Council can identify and secure interim SEN provision promptly, and that such provision is reviewed regularly until long term arrangements are in place.
• Strengthen its monitoring arrangements for agreed alternative provision by ensuring there is a clear record of agreed start dates and escalation where providers delay or withdraw, so young people are not left without provision.
34. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will complete the actions listed in the section above to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman