Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss Y’s complaint about it failing to take actions in a mediation agreement and provide updates by set deadlines. It failed to meet timescales, resulting in delays. It gave incorrect advice about personal budgets and failed to send her an application when it said it would. It also failed to keep proper records. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council failing to carry out the actions set out in an agreement following mediation in May 2025 for it to:
1. reassess her son Z for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan;
2. return the case to the Placement Panel because of safeguarding concerns;
3. meet with his school;
4. contact the speech and language therapist (SALT) for an assessment referral;
5. contact the occupational therapist (OT) for an assessment referral; and
6. make a referral to Early Help support.
2. In addition, she also complains about the Council failing to:

g) communicate with her properly;

1. deliver the provision set out in his EHC plan;
2. arrange a personal budget following an upheld complaint; and
3. act on safeguarding concerns she raised.

3. As a result, her son’s mental health has deteriorated, she paid for weekly counselling therapy, she also paid for a 12 week Emotional Literacy Support Assistant program, and he is socially isolated at school. This has caused her and her family a great deal of stress.

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. 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. 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)
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. 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)
9. 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 have and have not investigated

10. I have not investigated the following:

• Any issue she raised in her previous complaint (25 001 280) which was decided on 15 July 2025. This includes any complaint about finalising the EHC plan or its contents.
• Any complaint against the Council about actions that took place before August 2024. This is because 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) As Miss Y complained to us in August 2025, we would usually only investigate from August 2024. I have not been given any good reason why we should exercise discretion to investigate events before this date.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y, the information she sent, and the Council’s response to my enquiries, along with relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Education, Health and Care plans

12. A child or young person with special educational needs 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.
13. 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 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).  
14. 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 show appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. As 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. 

What happened

15. In early 2024, Miss Y applied for an Education, Health and Care needs assessment as she believed Z, her son, needed an EHC plan. Z was in Year 7 but struggled at the primary school he then attended.
16. From September, the Council decided Z should attend a mainstream secondary school (school 1).
17. The Council went on to decide Z needed an EHC plan, which it issued in March 2025. This named school 2. Miss Y was unhappy with the naming of this school and wished to appeal the decision to the tribunal.
18. As a result, there was a mediation meeting held in May at which there was an agreement reached between Miss Y and the Council. Under it, the Council agreed to take actions within set time scales. It agreed to act on each by 22 May and provide Miss Y with an update by 4 June. She later complained the Council failed to comply with the agreement and failed to communicate with her properly about it.
19. At stage 1 of the complaints procedure, the Council accepted communication by the dates set out in the agreement fell below standards expected. It upheld this part of her complaint. It did not accept her complaint about lost educational opportunity as Z had school 2 named in his EHC plan and had attended school 1 with an attendance rate of 94%.
20. I now consider the agreement and what action the Council was required to take under it, and what it actually did:

Complaint a): reassess her son for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan

21. The agreement said the Council would:

• reopen Z’s EHC plan back to draft working document stage. The Council confirmed this was done and shared with Miss Y in November 2025. In her response to my draft decision, Miss Y confirmed the first working document was issued to her in early July and she sent her comments at the end of the month.
• reopen it for amendments to Sections B, F, and K taking account of edits made at draft stage along with the SALT and OT reports. The evidence showed the SALT and OT were contacted in August. The Council also said this was done and shared with Miss Y in November.

22. The Council explained to Miss Y it would consider amendments to the EHC plan when it received the reports asked for. Any new findings in these reports would be applied to Sections B and F of the EHC plan.

My findings

23. I found no fault on this complaint for the following reasons:
1. The agreement did not give a set deadline by which the Council had to carry out these actions.
2. The evidence shows the Council did act on this part of the agreement. This shows there was contact both with Miss Y about the draft EHC plan and with the SALT/OT.
3. The placement panel (the panel) considered the case in September and agreed Z needed a mainstream school setting.
4. On balance, I am satisfied the Council worked to look again at the EHC plan when it received all edits to the draft along with any assessment reports.

Complaint b): return the case to the Placement Panel because of safeguarding concerns

24. Miss Y complained the Council failed to return the case to the panel following the agreement.
25. The Council said the case was discussed by the panel in September 2025 which decided Z should remain at a mainstream setting.
26. There was nothing in the agreement requiring the Council to ensure it was put to the panel.

My findings

27. I found no fault on this complaint because:
1. There was no mention of the Council saying it would do this in the agreement.
2. Despite this, the evidence shows this was done as the case was before the panel in September.

Complaint c): meet with school 1 and school 2

28. Miss Y complained the Council failed to meet with school 1 and 2 despite saying it would in the agreement.
29. Under the agreement, the Council agreed to call a meeting with:

• School 1: This was to see how Z’s needs could be met and how the school could facilitate this.
• At the start of June, an officer contacted Miss Y saying he had not spoken to school 1 for various reasons but a meeting with the school and her to discuss how Z was doing was asked for. Towards the end of the month, the Council said it was in touch with school 1 which confirmed he attended regularly and his needs were met.
• In response to our enquiries, the Council confirmed it communicated with the school and was given up to date information about Z, including attendance. Due to staff changes, the Council explained the records did not show the exact date when this happened but liaison between the school and the Council took place.
• School 2: This was to ensure Z’s needs were met from September. In response to our enquiries, the Council said the actions referred to for school 1 were also true for school 2.

30. The agreement said the Council would carry out these actions by 22 May 2025 and give an update to Miss Y by 4 June.
31. The Council confirmed a meeting took place in November with the Special Educational Needs Coordinator at school, the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) officer, the SEND tribunal officer, and a SEND manager. Funding for the school was agreed, and a working document would be sent to Miss Y in a week. There would be a follow up meeting in December. This took place and agreed the school was communicating with the OT and arranging an assessment. The SALT report was received.

My findings

32. I found fault on this complaint because:
1. The Council accepted its records were inadequate as they did not confirm dates.
2. I have seen nothing to show the Council took action required by the agreement by 22 May.
3. I have seen nothing to show Miss Y was given an update by 4 June as required.
33. I considered the injustice to Miss Y. While she was caused some distress (frustration, stress and uncertainty, for example), I have also taken account of the fact there was contact with the school about Z’s progress, needs, and funding.

Complaint d) and e): contact the speech and language therapist and occupational therapist for an assessment referral

34. The agreement said the Council would contact the SALT and OT services for a re-referral and assessment of Z. Again, the Council agreed to action this by 22 May 2025 and update her by 4 June.
35. On 9 June, the Council wrote to Miss Y confirming the commissioning of private OT and SALT assessments. This was when it sent her its stage 1 response to her complaint.
36. The Council later confirmed both SALT and OT were contacted in August.
37. In November, the Council told her the school started commissioning the OT and SALT assessments.
38. The SALT assessment was done on 3 December. The delay was due to the waiting for it to be done by the health services.
39. The Council explained it was still waiting for the OT report as Miss Y commissioned this herself.

My findings

40. I found no evidence showing the Council took the required actions by 22 May. These failures were fault. I am satisfied it caused her some injustice (frustration, stress, and uncertainty, for example)
41. While the Council updated Miss Y a few days after the agreed deadline, I am satisfied it did provide her with an update. There was some delay with the SALT assessment, but this was due to waiting times within the health service. I found no fault on this part of the complaint.

Complaint f): make a referral to Early Help support

42. Miss Y complains the Council failed to comply with the agreement which said it would rerefer Z to Early Help Support. It would action this by 22 May 2025 and give her an update by 4 June 2025.
43. Early Help Support is any service that supports children and families as soon as problems start. It can include services such as parenting support, emotional, health and wellbeing support, and communication and language support, for example. These are services provided by councils.
44. In response to our enquiries, the Council said this was done in March 2025, but this was before the date of the agreement. The Council explained the school would then complete an Early Help assessment. A referral of Z to Children’s Social Care was made in November and a single assessment was done in February 2026. This found Z and his family needed a referral for support from Early Help. A family visitor from Early Help contacted the family the following month to do a visit.
45. The single assessment was done to see if Z qualified as a child in need under the Children Act 1989. The delay from initial referral from SEND to Children Services and the start of Early Help support was because of the time taken to do the single assessment. It did not recognise the family was seeking Early Help Support at the same time.

My findings

46. I found fault on this complaint as I have seen nothing to show the Council actioned this by 22 May as required or gave her an update about this rereferral by the agreed date either.
47. I do note there was a single assessment done which found there was a need for a referral to Early Help Support, but this was eight months after she should have been given an update about the rereferral.
48. I am satisfied the fault caused Miss Y an injustice (frustration, stress, and uncertainty).
49. In addition to her complaint about the Council failing to comply with the agreement, I have also looked at Miss Y’s other complaints:

Complaint g): failure to communicate with her properly.

50. The Council accepted communication with her was poor and apologised at stage 1 of the complaints process. It explained what steps it had taken to improve communication.
51. In response to our enquiries, the Council listed the communication with Miss Y about the progress of the EHC plan.

My findings

52. Without going through every item of communication between Miss Y and the Council, I am satisfied, on balance, there were communication failures which the Council accepted. This includes, as I have also noted on her complaints about the agreement, the Council’s failure to provide her with updates under the agreement by the required dates. These failures caused Miss Y injustice (frustration, anxiety, and time spent chasing responses).

Complaint h): deliver the provision set out in his EHC plan

53. Miss Y complains the Council failed to ensure the provision set out in Z’s EHC plan was provided. Z’s EHC plan was issued in March 2025.
54. In June, the Council wrote to Miss Y saying it had been in touch with school 1 and Z was attending and his needs continued to be met there. The school was working with relevant services to ensure appropriate provision remained in place.
55. She wrote to the Council in October saying there was no section F provision secured.
56. The Council confirmed it monitored whether Z received the provision in his EHC plan through the annual review. There was communication between the Council and the school about it. The annual review took place in March 2026.

My findings

57. On balance, I am satisfied the Council reviewed whether Z received the provision set out in his EHC plan. This is because there was some contact with the school, which satisfied it that his needs were being met, and an annual review was done. The Council was waiting for the outcome of the OT and SALT assessments to consider whether any amendments were needed to his EHC plan.

Complaint i): arrange a personal budget following an upheld complaint

58. Miss Y asked about arrangements for a personal budget in July 2025 because of a shortfall in provision.
59. In June, the Council wrote to Miss Y saying personal budgets tended to be part of Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) packages. Such a package was not appropriate for Z because he was attending school and had an offer from school 2 which said it could meet his needs. Miss Y responded saying it was not correct only those with an EOTAS package receive them. She again asked for details for a personal budget.
60. The same month, in its stage 1 response, the Council agreed to consider any request for a personal budget. It would issue her with a personal budget form by mid-July. Miss Y said a personal budget form was promised by 16 July, but she did not receive it.
61. The Council said Miss Y again asked for a personal budget in December. She wanted British Sign Language tuition and weekly counselling. As she made no formal application for it, no funding was granted.
62. The Council’s website explained parents of a child with an EHC plan can ask for a personal budget during the drafting of an EHC plan, when it has issued it, and during a re-assessment. If the Council refuses a personal budget, there is a right to ask an appeal panel for a review of that decision.

My findings

63. I found the following on this complaint:
1. The Council was wrong to tell Miss Y a personal budget was not appropriate for Z because he had no EOTAS package. This was fault.
2. It was also fault to agree to send her a form to apply for a personal budget and not do so.
3. I am satisfied Miss Y lost the opportunity to apply for a personal budget. She has the uncertainty of not knowing what the outcome might have been. She suffered frustration and some stress because of these failures.

Complaint j): act on safeguarding concerns she raised

64. Miss Y has safeguarding concerns concerning her own family which was why Z did not attend his catchment school. Schools further from home make it difficult for them to find him. In addition, Z’s father suffered when he was a child and went to the local catchment school. This was why she wanted school 2 removing from his EHC plan.
65. In response to my draft decision, she explained her concerns were not limited to allegations within school 2 but included travel arrangements, emotional safety, deterioration in mental health, and Z’s vulnerabilities.
66. The Council said as she raised no safeguarding reports about school 2, no investigation was done of it.
67. I have seen an email from Miss Y to the Council sent in October 2025. She referred to ‘serious safeguarding’ failures. Those listed in her email included an early annual review, transport, Early Help, the agreement, along with SALT and OT provision.

My findings

68. The issues I saw Miss Y raise were not directly related to safeguarding issues about school 2 but generic issues I have already considered.
69. If Miss Y considers there were safeguarding issues about school 2, this is a matter she can raise at the tribunal hearing about the Council naming this school in his EHC plan. This means this part of her complaint is not within our jurisdiction.

Back to top

Action

70. I considered our guidance on remedies. I also took account of what the Council said it would do to improve communication. This included changing the ways SEND officers are allocated cases, as officers are now allocated all young people with EHC plans where commissioned provision is in place. This allows a closer working relationship and communication with relevant parties and parents. It also allows for easier identification of a SEND officer. SEND officers were sent for training on expectations for communication to ensure timely responses are given.
71. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send a written apology to Miss Y for the failures to: ensure proper records were kept of officer action; meet timescales set out in the mediation agreement without delay; give her correct advice about eligibility for personal budgets; send her an application form for a personal budget as it said it would.
2. Pay £250 to Miss Y for the injustice caused by the fault found.
3. Remind relevant officers of the need to make, and retain, records of key contact with third parties on cases.
4. Review why deadlines in the mediation agreement were not kept and act to ensure action is taken to ensure they are kept in the future.
5. Send her an application for a personal budget along with advice about them.
72. The Council should provide us with evidence it complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

73. I found fault causing injustice on Miss Y’s complaint against the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman