Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not review Mr B’s Education Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales and did not provide suitable education. He said this impacted Mr B’s education and emotional wellbeing and has also caused him avoidable stress. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council agreed to apologise, provide missed provision, make a payment and take service improvement action to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of Mr B’s education. Specifically, he complains the Council:

1. Did not review the Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan within statutory timescales;
2. Did not provide suitable provision; and
3. Communicated poorly.

2. Mr X says this meant Mr B has not received suitable education which has also impacted his emotional wellbeing. He says it has also caused him unnecessary stress and financial strain which has impacted his physical health.

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. 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.
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
8. 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 have happened

EHC Plan statutory timescales (part a of the complaint)

9. 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 council can do this.
10. Where a child or young person moves to another council, the ‘old’ council must transfer the EHC Plan to the ‘new’ council. The new council must make sure the provision in the EHC Plan begins on the day of the move or within 15 working days of becoming aware of the move if this is later. The new council must review the EHC Plan either within 12 months of it last being reviewed or three months of the date of the transfer, whichever is the later date. (Section 15 Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014)  

Provision (part b of the complaint)

11. 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)  
12. 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. 

13. When a child reaches 18 years of age, they are legally an adult and responsibility for meeting their needs moves from the council’s children services to its adult services. The legal basis for assessing their needs changes from the Children Act 1989 to the Care Act 2014. However, councils can decide to treat a children’s assessment as an adult assessment and can also carry out joint assessments.
14. Statutory guidance says transition assessments should begin when the council can be reasonably confident about what the young person’s needs for care and support will look like when they turn 18. However, for a young person with an EHC plan, the process should begin in year 9 (age 13 to 14). The purpose of the assessment is to provide the young person and their family with information so they know what to expect in future and can prepare for adulthood.
15. The assessment must identify all the young person’s needs for care and support and identify the outcomes the young person wishes to achieve. The assessment should also consider whether the carer is able to continue in their caring role after the young person turns 18.
16. The guidance says professionals should work together to share information and build new relationships in advance of transition from children’s to adult services. It also says councils should have a clear understanding of their responsibilities, including funding arrangements. “Disputes between different departments within a [council] about who is responsible can be time consuming and can sometimes result in disruption to the young person or carer”.
17. If transition assessment and planning is carried out as it should be there should be no gaps in the provision of care and support. However, if adult care and support is not in place when the young person turns 18, the council must continue providing the services under children’s legislation until it is in place or until it decides the young person does not have “eligible needs”.

What happened

18. Mr B had an EHC Plan. The Plan said Mr B should attend an independent special school and receive direct in class support from a speech and language therapist. It said Mr B should access an individualised programme designed by an Occupational Therapist to meet his sensory and physical needs. It said Mr B should be taught an individually designed English and maths curriculum. It said Mr B was dependent on adult support with most self-care tasks.
19. In spring 2025, Mr B moved into the Council’s area. Mr B was 18 years old. The Council received the transfer EHC Plan.
20. The Council did not provide Mr B with any provision.
21. In July, Mr X made a formal complaint.
22. The Council made several consultations to independent special schools.
23. In August, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint. It told him the consulted schools did not offer a place to Mr B and it would continue to seek a suitable school placement. It told Mr X it would arrange a package of tuition for Mr B in the meantime. It said the package would include the missed provision from April.
24. In October, the Council provided Mr B with daily one-to-one in person tutoring in a community study space. The sessions were five hours long.
25. After a few days, Mr X and the tutor told the Council that Mr B was engaging well with the tuition however was only accessing 1.5 hours of tuition per day. They said this was because Mr X had to be present in the sessions as the tutor could not meet Mr B’s personal care needs and Mr X could only stay for 1.5 hours.
26. Shortly afterwards, the Council asked the tuition company for a quote for the cost of another person to attend the sessions to support Mr B’s personal care needs. It also told Mr X it would complete a care assessment.
27. In late October, the Council received the quote.
28. In early November, Mr X asked the Council for an update. The Council told Mr X it was considering the quote.
29. In January 2026, the Council completed a care assessment for Mr B. It assessed Mr B needed a personal assistant to take him to the community study space and stay with him during the tuition to meet his personal care needs.
30. In February, the Council wrote to Mr X and explained it would not pay for the additional person to support Mr B’s needs during tutor sessions.
31. In April, the Council financed Mr B’s care package including the personal assistant role. Mr X decided he would act as Mr B’s personal assistant.
32. To date, the Council has not issued a final EHC Plan for Mr B and has not made any speech and language therapy or occupational therapy available to Mr B.
33. Mr B continues to access 1.5 hours of tuition daily.

Analysis

Statutory timescales (part a of the complaint)

34. We expect councils to follow the statutory timescales set out in the law and the Code. We are likely to find fault where there are significant breaches of those timescales. The Council should have reviewed Mr B’s EHC Plan by July 2025. It has yet to issue its finalised EHC Plan. This is a delay of 11 months so far. This delay is fault. I consider this fault caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustrated his right of appeal, which is injustice.

Provision (part b of the complaint)

35. The council has a duty to make sure the young person with an EHC Plan receives the special educational provision set out in their Plan. The Council should have made provision available in April. It accepts it did not offer any provision to Mr B until October. This delay is fault.
36. The Council provided five hours of tuition per day from October to make up for the loss of educational provision caused by its delay. Mr B did not access additional hours provided by the Council. However, I consider the overall loss of educational provision to Mr B was not caused by fault by the Council, for the reasons I set out in paragraph 40 below. I do consider the Council’s delay arranging educational provision caused Mr B and Mr X unnecessary and avoidable uncertainty.
37. The Council is yet to provide the speech and language therapy and occupational therapy set out in Mr B’s transfer in Plan. This is a delay of 14 months so far. This is fault. This fault has caused Mr B to lose provision and has caused Mr X avoidable distress and uncertainty, which is injustice.
38. Mr B was 18 years old when his Plan transferred to the Council. The Council should have assessed Mr B’s care and support needs in the context of transition arrangements from its children’s service to its adult social care service. It did not do so until January 2026. This delay is fault.
39. In January 2026, the Council assessed that Mr B needed the support of a personal assistant to access his tuition. The information it referred to in its decision-making was available in April 2025 and so I consider the Council could have completed this assessment earlier. I also consider, on the balance of probabilities, had it made the assessment earlier it likely would have made the same decision about Mr B’s need for a personal assistant to access his tuition.
40. Once the Council completed its assessment, Mr X decided to act in as Mr B’s personal assistant. I consider on balance, if the Council had completed the assessment earlier, it is likely Mr X would have also made the same decision to act as Mr B’s personal assistant. Mr X says he is unable to support Mr B for the duration of his tuition. For this reason, I consider had the Council completed its assessment without delay, Mr B would still not have accessed the full five hours. I consider any injustice caused to Mr B from missing tuition was not because of fault by the Council.

Communication (part c of the complaint)

41. The Council accepts there was a short period where it communicated poorly with Mr X due to a staffing issue and it apologised to Mr X for this. The evidence I have seen shows since then the Council communicated with Mr X regularly and responded to his requests for updates in a timely manner. I find no fault.

Back to top

Action

42. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. issue Mr B’s reviewed final EHC Plan without further delay.
2. arrange the speech and language therapy as detailed in Mr B’s transfer in EHC Plan and considers any action it needs to take to address any shortfall in speech and language therapy provision for Mr B caused by its 14 month delay.
3. arrange the occupational therapy as detailed in Mr B’s transfer in EHC Plan and considers any action it needs to take to address any shortfall in occupational therapy provision for Mr B caused by its 14 month delay.
4. make a written apology to Mr X and Mr B in recognition of the unnecessary uncertainty caused by its delay issuing the final EHC Plan, its delay completing the necessary transition arrangements for Mr B to its adult social care services and its delay arranging the provision set out in Mr B’s Plan.
5. make a symbolic payment of £500 to remedy the unnecessary uncertainty to Mr X and Mr B caused by the delays outlined above.
6. tell us what action it will take to improve its transition assessment and planning for young people with EHC Plans with reference to lessons learned from this case.
43. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman