Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to provide suitable education when a child could not access school, and a failure to process the annual review of the child’s Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timeframes for two consecutive years. The child missed out on six terms of suitable education and appeal rights were delayed. The Council will apologise, pay a symbolic financial payment, and make service improvements. The complaint is upheld.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council has managed her child, Y’s, education. Ms X complains the Council:
• Since 2022/3 failed to provide suitable fulltime education, including special educational provision, when Y became unable to attend school.
• Failed to keep the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan up to date and follow the correct annual review process so Ms X did not have a right of appeal in 2024 and 2025.
• Provided incorrect information to Ms X that Education Otherwise than at School (EOTAS) under s.61 Children and Families Act 2014 had to be for 25 hours per week and if Y could not cope with 25 hours, then Ms X would need to home educate.
• Failed to provide a decision, with reasons, whether EOTAS under s.61 should replace the school setting and continued to name a school in Section I of the Plan that Y could not attend.
• Inappropriately asked for medical evidence and threatened legal action for non-attendance.
• Put pressure on Ms X to electively home educate or risk action for non-attendance.
• Deflected responsibilities onto the school rather than taking ownership of the fault.
2. Ms X complains Y has missed out on education, exacerbating trauma to Y. The situation has placed enormous stress on Ms X and the wider family, and their right of appeal has been frustrated.
3. Ms X has also raised issues relating to:
• Family law proceedings,
• Child in need / social care involvement,
• Poor communication from and between various departments,
• Delays in sharing records which made it difficult to understand decisions made,
• Failure to provide free school meals.

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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
• 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)
• Before considering a complaint, the Ombudsman should be satisfied the Council has had an opportunity to investigate and respond to a complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
• 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)
• 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)
• We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
• 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.
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 Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. 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

8. I have investigated the matters set out in paragraph 1 from the time of a multi-agency meeting held in Summer 2024, which is just over twelve months before Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. This is a logical starting point for the investigation, being a review of Y’s, by then, longstanding absence from education.
9. I have referred to some of the history before Summer 2024, but I have not considered if there was fault or injustice for this period as I have not seen any reason why Ms X could not have brought a complaint about missed education in academic years 2022-3 and 2023-4 sooner. I also note Ms X did have a right of appeal to the Tribunal in Autumn 2023.
10. I have not investigated events after July 2026. Ms X had a right of appeal to the Tribunal which we would we expect her to use if she remains dissatisfied with the Plan.
11. I have not investigated complaints about the family court proceedings. We cannot investigate where we would risk trespassing into the role of the court.
12. There is a statutory children’s complaints procedure where the complaint relates to children’s social services, which we would expect complainants and the Council to complete before bringing a complaint to the Ombudsman. I have not seen evidence the children’s statutory complaint procedure has been completed. I have considered information in social care records that was available to the Council in considering its education duties to Y.
13. I have not investigated the complaint about free school meals. Y was on roll at a school and the school was responsible for provision of free school meals. The actions of the school are not within our jurisdiction.
14. I have not investigated the complaint about delays in providing documents as I have not seen evidence this was raised in Ms X’s Summer 2025 complaint to the Council. We cannot consider matters where the Council has not had an opportunity to consider and resolve them via its own complaint process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
16. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
17. 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

Factual background

18. Ms X told me that a child in need (CIN) plan was initiated for Y in Spring 2023 in the context of family proceedings and support needs. An EHC needs assessment was underway and Y was receiving support from the emotional-based school avoidance (EBSA) team. EBSA closed its case in May 2023 on the basis Y’s case was wider than it’s remit to support children back into school, because Y was not able to access school. Support from the Medical Tuition Service (MTS) was also refused in 2023.
19. The Council issued a final EHC Plan for Y in Autumn 2023, naming a mainstream primary school as the setting Y should attend and Y transferred there. Ms X told me the transition was unsuccessful.
20. In early 2024, the school made a referral for play therapy for Y due to EBSA. The Council approved eight weeks of play therapy via its EBSA advisory team. Ms X says an autism advisor visited Y at school in Spring 2024 and documented signs of chronic autistic burnout. The advisor recommended home based learning. In late Spring the EBSA team provided a robot to the school so Y could access lessons from home and approved another course of play therapy. The Council also provided the school with a list of alternative providers for the school to consider as a bridge to get Y back into school and improve Y’s confidence.
21. A multi-agency meeting was held in June 2024. It was agreed the expectation for Y to attend school would be reduced to two to three times per week for 10 to 15 minute sessions at a time. Maths work was sent home to complete. There is reference to the school looking to arrange one hour per week of literacy tuition, but I have seen no evidence this happened. The school noted Y was near the top of the waiting list for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and that some unspecified support from the autism team was expected to start in September 2024.
22. Ms X says a CIN plan was reinstated at this point and Y allocated a keyworker.
23. The annual review meeting of Y’s EHC Plan was held in October 2024. The school noted Y had rarely been in school for the summer term, attending 30 minutes per week. The school said it could not meet Y’s needs when Y was not coming into school. It was extremely concerned about Y’s academic progress, and it could not work on any of Y’s EHC Plan targets. The school noted the EBSA team was stepping back because the therapy was not achieving progress and considered different support was required. The school wanted the EHC Plan to be rewritten to outline Y’s needs and objectives given none of the current targets could be progressed while Y was not attending school.
24. Several teams from the Council attended this review meeting. The special educational needs (SEN) representative stated the school was the right place for Y and although they were not seeing progress the fact the school was supportive of Y was important.
25. Actions from the meeting were to explore a craft teacher to work with Y at home and discuss therapy options with CAMHS. The Head Teacher’s report recommended the EHC Plan was amended. No placement change was recommended, although it was noted ‘school are currently unable to meet the needs outlined in the current EHCP’.
26. The Council did not issue a decision letter after the meeting stating whether it intended to amend the Plan or not amend it. It also did not amend the Plan. The 2023 version of the Plan remained in force until February 2026, after the next year’s annual review.
27. The EBSA team ended its involvement in November 2024 and closed the case. Ms X says it was noted Y had engaged well with therapy but that every strategy (robot, part-time timetable, zoom calls, play therapy) had been documented as unsuccessful. Ms X says the EBSA team was of the view Y could not attend school and next steps had to be guided by the EHC Plan.
28. The CIN plan dated late November 2024 had an outcome Y would be accessing a higher level of educational provision by mid-December 2024. The action required the rewriting of the EHC Plan so school could understand how much funding could be allocated to alternative provisions. There was continued discussion of an online tutor and about a search for a craft teacher.
29. A referral to MTS was received by the Council in December.
30. At the next CIN review in mid-January 2025 the updating of the EHC Plan had not been actioned. The SEN officer explained this was due to a backlog in processing but said it would be prioritised. The school had not yet identified any tutors, and it was agreed this would be folded into a ‘broader bespoke package’ and that MTS could provide advice. However, a few days later MTS refused the referral saying the school should instead put in place an alternative provision package to support reintegration.
31. A CIN review in March 2025 noted Y was accessing some online packages but no tutors. Ms X said adding an online tutor would be too much given Y was engaging with selected online packages only.
32. There is evidence free school meal entitlement was considered in Spring 2025, but the matter referred to the school as Y remained on roll.
33. At CIN reviews in May and June there had been no progress with the EHC Plan. A craft teacher started in or about June and was developing a positive relationship with Y. No academic tuition was in place.
34. A multi-agency meeting was held in late June 2025. This meeting was the prompt for Ms X to raise a complaint. Minutes of the meeting recorded the following:
• Y currently had a craft teacher and play therapist as part of her education plan.
• Y was accessing an online maths package but no literacy or other academics.
• The school considered Y unable to access education in school, Y was only engaging with the craft teacher at home.
• Y had ‘autistic burnout’ and may be medically unfit to attend school. The SEN officer said this could not be stated as fact as no medical professional had said this. This was why MTS would not get involved previously.
• Ms X said no medical professional (eg CAMHS) would work with Y and asked how evidence could be obtained. The school also asked this. Ms X was concerned she was expected to get private advice.
• Ms X asked about EOTAS (under s.61) but the Council’s attendance officer said this had to be based on evidence Y could not attend any school.
• The school did not expect Y to attend during Year 6 and wanted clarity on what Y’s education would look like over the next year.
• The SEN officer said it was agreed Y could not attend school fulltime and this was why they had all been working on an alternative provision package. The school said this had not been successful as Y was only working on maths and could not access other learning. The SEN officer said the Council would consult secondary schools before considering s.61 EOTAS and without medical evidence the Council must plan for Y being in school.
• The SEN officer said they were not there to advise about alternative provision, this was for the school to look at within existing funding, and that some schools would fund tutors.
• The SEN officer said with an EOTAS (s.61) package the Council had a legal duty to implement 25 hours education. Some parents said this was too much and then the option was to electively home educate. If Ms X did not want to home educate, she had to continue to work with the school.
• The school’s view remained Y could not return to school given what had been tried had been unsuccessful. The SEN officer said Year 6 could be spent just building stamina to get Y into school for Year 7.
• The actions from the meeting were for the school to explore if the craft teacher would be willing to do more tutoring and for school to explore funding.
• The attendance officer said no attendance action would be taken provided Y continued to engage with what was already in place.
35. Ms X complained to the Council in July 2025. Ms X said Y required 24/7 supervision, was frequently dysregulated and aggressive. Ms X was unable to work and forced to spend money on clinical assessments, educational supplies and opportunities. Ms X said Y was entitled to free school meals and while vouchers had been requested none had been received. Ms X said she considered Y required bespoke s.61 EOTAS but she could not appeal for this because the Council had failed to complete the previous annual review or provide an appeal right. Ms X said the EBSA team agreed Y could not reintegrate which was why this team withdrew.
36. The Council provided a final complaint response in August 2025. It said:
• The school had not explained why it wanted the EHC Plan amended and this information was being chased.
• The CIN plan would continue to focus on Y not attending school.
• No change of placement had been requested at annual review.
• S.61 EOTAS could only be provided where the annual review explained why Y could not attend any school and medical evidence supported this.
• Ms X could ask the GP or other health professional for evidence.
37. Ms X said a psychiatrist diagnosed Y with various conditions in August 2025 and advised Y would need home based tutors or online school.
38. In September 2025 some online tutoring began by the same teacher as for crafts. A play therapist working with Y at that time stated Y’s mental state would not allow for further education at that point and recommended continuation of therapy. However, Y did engage with the extra sessions provided by the existing tutor. Ms X says the tutor noted a return to school, including specialist provision, did not appear to be viable at that point.
39. The next annual review took place in October 2025. School reported no progress and attempts to engage Y, for example via online calls, were successful. The school noted Y had been absent from education since 2023, and the EHC Plan was now very out of date. School arranged for an Educational Psychologist (EP) to visit Y at home. Ms X says the EP recommended home tutors and online provision and that free school meals be considered if eligible.
40. CIN again closed the case in October 2025, although outcomes for Y to access learning had not been completed.
41. The Council received the annual review paperwork from the school in November 2025 and issued an amendment letter at the end of December, but with no accompanying amendment notice / draft plan. The draft Plan was provided in January 2026, after the involvement of the Ombudsman and a request for Y’s EHC Plans.
42. The Council issued a final EHC Plan in February 2026, but this did not update the content. The Council just added a secondary school placement for Y to attend from September 2026. Ms X did not appeal this version of the Plan.
43. Work on the draft sent in January 2026 continued, with a second draft issued in April 2026.
44. In response to Ombudsman enquiries, it is noted free school meals were considered a year earlier and referred to the school, but the school had never replied.
45. A secondary transition meeting was held in June 2026 and a request for s.61 EOTAS considered by the Council’s panel and approved from September 2026.
46. In July 2026, the Council responded to a further complaint Ms X has raised about delay completing the October 2025 review, as well as other concerns outside the scope of this investigation.
47. The Council issued the final EHC Plan in July 2026 setting out EOTAS provision to start in September, although Ms X told me several elements of the package were already in place and being delivered. Ms X says part of the package is via direct payments, and these have yet to be paid.
48. The Council has advised it will be responsible for considering the provision of free school meals from September 2026 due to Y’s new EOTAS status.

Relevant law and guidance

EHC Plans and reviews

49. 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)  
50. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. 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) 
51. 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.
52. 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.

Alternative education (s.19)

53. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that the council must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child. The alternative educational provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.
54. If a council discovers a child is absent from school for an extended period, it should consider the reasons for this and take account of evidence from relevant parties (such as the child’s school, parents, and medical professionals). It must then decide whether it has a duty to make alternative educational provision.
55. If a council wants to see medical or other evidence, it should ask for it at the earliest opportunity. The council should account for any challenges a parent might have in obtaining evidence, and review its position based on any new evidence it receives.
56. In Guidance ‘Summary of responsibilities where a mental health issue is affecting attendance’, and ‘Working together to improve school attendance’, the Government says professionals should provide cross-agency support through a team around the family to alleviate a pupil’s concerns about barriers to attending school. Schools must record absences as authorised where pupils cannot attend due to illness that is mental health related. Schools should inform the Council where pupils are likely to miss more than fifteen days. The Guidance says Councils ‘must not follow an inflexible policy of requiring medical evidence before making their decision about alternative education. Councils must look at the evidence for each individual case, even where there is no medical evidence, and make their own decision about alternative education’. Caselaw has also found that councils will have a responsibility to decide whether alternative education under s.19 is needed even if there is no medical evidence.
57. Councils should consider any attempts the school is making to support the child. This might involve sending work home for the child to complete, arranging disability related support, placing the child on a reduced timetable, or providing online education as a short-term measure. If there is a clear, effective, and time-bound plan for reintegration then there may be no immediate role for the council in providing alternative education. Statutory guidance ‘Arranging education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs’, 2023, says the Council does not need to become involved in such arrangements unless it has reason to believe that the education being provided by the school is unsuitable. If the provision made by the school is suitable but is not fulltime or for the number of hours a child can benefit from without adversely affecting their health the Council may still need to intervene.
58. If the council decides it must arrange alternative provision, it needs to arrange provision based on the child’s individual needs. It should also have a review process to ensure the provision remains in the child’s best interests. Councils can decide a child cannot cope with full-time provision, especially where the reason for their non-attendance is medical. When this happens, the Council should provide reasons for the amount of provision it arranges.
59. If a child has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan the council also has an ongoing duty to arrange the support guaranteed by the Plan. However, this might not always be possible, such as where the SEN support is designed for the child’s normal classroom setting.
60. The Department for Education guidance (Working together to improve school attendance) states all pupils of compulsory school age are entitled to a full-time education. In very exceptional circumstances there may be a need for a temporary part-time timetable to meet a pupil’s individual needs. For example, where a medical condition prevents a pupil from attending full-time education and a part-time timetable is considered as part of a re-integration package. A part-time timetable must not be treated as a long-term solution. 
61. We publish good practice guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to identify and arrange alternative educational provision: Supporting children out of school (October 2025)
62. Our guidance says that councils should:

• consider all the reasons for a child’s absence from school, and make a written evidence-based decision about whether it will arrange alternative education provision;
• communicate this decision as a matter of good practice to parents and where it decides not to arrange alternative education tell parents the expectations about school attendance, and the potential consequences for continued absences;
• ensure the provision meets the individual needs of the child where it decides to arrange alternative education and explain its reasons for providing a part-time education if it decides the child cannot cope with full time provision;
• keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing when the child is able;
• work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to their normal educational setting as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary; and
• ensure effective channels of communication between parents, internal teams, and external bodies (such as schools, and the NHS) so that issues are dealt with promptly by the right people, and that any complaints are identified and responded to under the relevant policy.

63. Where councils arrange for schools or other bodies to carry out their functions on their behalf, the council remains responsible. Therefore, councils should retain oversight and control to ensure their duties are properly fulfilled.

Free school meals

64. The Education Act 1996 places a duty on maintained schools, academies and free schools to determine if a child is eligible for free school meals and to provide those meals. S.512(2) states meals must be available either on the premises or at any other place where education is being provided. This means the responsibility to provide free school meals where a child receives s.19 alternative education lies with the school, not the Council. Schools are not within our jurisdiction.
65. The Council has a power to provide free school meals to s.61 EOTAS pupils.

Analysis

EHC Plan

66. The Ombudsman cannot consider the merits of a Council decision to continue to name a school rather than s.61 EOTAS. Council decisions carry a right of appeal to the Tribunal we expect families to use. We can consider if there was fault in the way the decision was made, such as delay.
67. The Council held an annual review in Autumn 2024 but failed to complete this by issuing a decision not to amend, or by issuing a final EHC Plan, before the next review meeting was held a year later. This is fault. The Council had to issue a decision within four weeks, and any amended final Plan within twelve weeks, of October 2024. It did not provide a right of appeal to the Tribunal until February 2026, over a year late. This was excessive delay and denied Ms X an appeal right at a time when Ms X was dissatisfied with the type and level of education being provided. This was a significant injustice.
68. Ms X did gain an appeal right in February 2026, but I consider she had good reason not to use it. The Council issued a final EHC Plan to name a secondary placement, but did not amend any of the content, despite the school and Ms X complaining it had been out of date since the October 2024 review. The Council also issued a draft amended Plan in late January 2026 on which it was seeking Ms X’s views at the time it issued the February 2026 final Plan. It also continued to work with Ms X to amend the Plan after February 2026, supporting that this was not intended to be the final version. It is understandable that Ms X waited to see what changes the Council would make before deciding whether to appeal.
69. The Council did not issue the amended final Plan until July 2026. This is fault. Ms X has complained, and the Council has accepted, it failed to follow the statutory process after the October 2025 review. It again failed to issue an amendment notice and draft amended plan within four weeks, or a final Plan within twelve weeks.
70. I am not persuaded by the Council’s views in the complaint response that it was unsure why the school wanted amendments to the Plan. This was clearly set out by the school in Autumn 2024, and subsequently. It was also in the CIN action plan throughout 2025, and the SEN team repeatedly accepted in CIN meetings that the failure to update the plan after October 2024 was due to its own service failure, not any fault by the school.
71. The July 2026 Plan provides for s.61 EOTAS to start from September 2026. If there had not been delay after the October 2025 review, this decision may have been reached earlier.
72. If the EOTAS package was not fully in place by the start of term in September 2026 then Ms X would need to raise this as a new complaint.

Alternative provision

73. I am satisfied that by June 2024, which is the start of my investigation, when the multi-agency meeting took place, the s.19 duty had already been triggered. An agreement was made to reduce Y’s attendance at school to 30 minutes per week on the basis previous interventions had failed. The EBSA team was already involved, a robot had been provided, and reintegration had not succeeded. There was plainly enough evidence by June 2024 that Y was unable for health, or other reasons, to access education in school.
74. The s.19 duty lay with the Council. It could ask the school to arrange tuition, but it could not imply the legal duty to do so lay with the school and not the Council. This was fault. When the school did not put any, or enough, tuition in place, the Council had to intervene. It did not do so, this was fault and caused significant injustice. Y should have received alternative provision under s.19 at the level suitable for her health needs from June 2024 until Summer 2026, when the amended EHC Plan setting out EOTAS was issued and the package started to be put in place.
75. As Y had an EHC Plan the Council should also have sought to implement as much of the special educational provision in Section F as possible. The school raised specific concerns in the October 2024 none of Y’s EHC targets were being worked on. Again, the Council did not intervene. This was fault.
76. I agree with Ms X that the Council wrongly deflected responsibility onto the school.

Advice about EOTAS (EOTAS), home education and medical advice

77. I find the Council did provide incorrect advice s.61 could only be provided if a child could manage 25 hours per week education. There is no law or guidance that states this. The advice that Ms X would need to home educate if Y could not manage 25 hours education per week was incorrect. This was fault and put inappropriate pressure on Ms X to take on responsibility for Y’s education.
78. The Council can ask a parent to provide medical advice they have available to support medical tuition, but the onus is on the Council to seek advice if none is to hand, or to make decisions using other sources of information that are available.

Injustice

79. Y missed out on education including special educational provision between June 2024 and June 2026. A very small amount of education was put in place in Summer 2025. My understanding is more provision was added when the panel approved EOTAS in June 2026.
80. It is difficult to know how much more education Y could have managed if the case had been managed correctly. No professional was asked to give a clear view. It is apparent this is likely to have been less than fulltime, and Y may have struggled with provision outside the home in any event. The uncertainty of how much education was missed is itself an injustice.
81. Ms X was put to additional time, trouble and uncertainty seeking to resolve both the EHC Plan issues and the alternative provision.
82. Ms X’s right of appeal was significantly delayed.

Back to top

Agreed Action

Within four weeks of my final decision:

83. The Council will apologise to Ms X and Y for the faults identified in this decision statement.
84. The Council will pay Ms X, on behalf of Y, £6000 to acknowledge the missed education and uncertainty over a period of six terms.

Within twelve weeks of my final decision:

85. The Council will provide training and/or guidance to all relevant staff on the Council’s section 19 duty to ensure they understand and implement it correctly.
86. The Council will ensure it considers and has arrangements in place to deliver special educational provision, including therapies, when pupils with EHC Plans are unable to attend school.
87. The Council will provide training and/or guidance to all relevant staff on the s.61 EOTAS to ensure they understand and implement it correctly and provide accurate advice to parents.
88. The Council will review how it completes reviews of EHC Plans and identify improvements it needs to make to ensure it is able to complete reviews within statutory timeframes. The Council will share its action plan with the Ombudsman.
89. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

90. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman