Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure the provision in Section H of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. I find the Council failed to provide specific training as set out in the Plan. This caused significant frustration, uncertainty and distress for Miss X and her child. The Council has already apologised to Miss X and made a symbolic payment to remedy some of the injustice caused. The Council will carry out an annual review of the EHC Plan to remedy the outstanding injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X says the Council has failed to provide MAPA (Management of Actual or Potential Aggression) training, as set out in Section H of her son, Y’s, Education and Health (EHC) Plan. Miss X says the Council has failed to provide this training since 2021.
2. This has caused her significant distress, and Miss X and Y have been vulnerable to safeguarding and health and safety risks.

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. 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)
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. 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

7. Miss X complains the Council has not provided MAPA training since 2021. Miss X complained to us in September 2025. As I have said above, we cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons for us to do so.
8. In this case, I have decided there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion and look back further than September 2024, as this is 12 months before Miss X brought her complaint to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered all comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Education Health and Care Plans

11. 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. 
12. The EHC Plan is set out in Sections which include: 

• Section B: Special educational needs.
• Section D: Social care needs related to the child or young person’s special educational needs (SEN).
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person.
• Section H1: concerns social care provision for children and young people under the age of eighteen and detailed under s2 the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act (CSDPA) 1970.
• Section H2: Any social care provision reasonably required by the learning difficulties or disabilities which result in the child or young person having SEN.
• Section I: The name and/or type of educational placement.

What happened

13. What follows is a summary of key events and is not intended as a detailed account of everything that happened.
14. Y has special educational needs and has an EHC Plan. A Child in need (CIN) Plan is also in place for Y under Section 17, Children’s Act 1989.
15. The Council agreed that Y required support from two Personal Assistants (PA). Miss X has her own health and care needs and requires support from carers.
16. A final amended EHC Plan was in place in September 2024. Section H of the Plan stated:

“To provide training to (Miss Y), (Y’s PA) and anyone else who deals with (Y) during the day to be MAPA training (Management of Actual or Potential Aggression) which teaches management and intervention techniques to help cope with escalating behaviour in a professional and safe manner.”

17. On 22 January 2025, the Council asked if Miss X and/or Y’s PAs would be interested in attending Non-Violent Resistance training (NVR). This was a 10-week program that would start on 27 January 2025, running weekly on Monday evening from 6:00pm to 7:30pm.
18. Miss X explained that one carer finished working at 4:00pm and the second carer finished working at 6:00pm. Miss X said the last carer could not be left alone with Y as she was pregnant. Miss X said she was unable to attend as she would also be caring for Y.
19. A further final amended EHC Plan was issued in March 2025. The MAPA training provision remained in Section H of the Plan.
20. In June 2025, the Council’s records state that Miss X and Y’s carers had completed ‘Behaviour Management including Positive Behaviour Support and Pathological Demand Avoidance’ training. The training identified a strong need for specialised training to better manage and support Y’s needs due to the severity and complexity of his needs. The Council noted the training was essential to ensure both Miss Y and the people caring for Y were well equipped to respond to his needs with consistency, confidence, and compassion, and provide them with essential skills and strategies to ensure Miss X’s safety and Y’s well-being.
21. An annual review of the Plan was also completed in June 2025. It was noted that MAPA training had not been delivered and the Council would get funding for Miss X to attend the training. Miss X said this was urgent as there had been an increase in physical aggression from Y.
22. Miss X complained to the Council in July 2025. Miss X said Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) training and MAPA had been in Section H of Y’s EHC Plan since 2021 and all CIN and Child and Family assessments since 2020. Miss X said this training had never been delivered. Miss X explained that:

• without specialist training Y and those who supported him were left at risk of harm during periods of escalation or dysregulation;
• the PAs were being placed in situation where they were expected to manage complex behaviours without appropriate training;
• she was a disabled parent carer with her own care plan through social care and the refusal to make this adjustment to support her parenting role undermined her rights under the Equality Act 2010; and
• there had been a continued failure to implement the provision detailed in Section H of the EHC Plan.

23. The Council responded to the complaint on 11 August 2025. It acknowledged the provision of MAPA training as set out in Y’s EHC Plan. The Council said there was no requirement for PBS training specified in the Plan but had recognised there was a need for support and had previously offered Miss X training in NVR. The Council confirmed it had assessed this would be appropriate for Y’s level of need and once Miss X was trained it would seek funding to enable Y’s PAs to attend the same or similar training.
24. The Council partially upheld the complaint on the basis that it had failed to deliver MAPA training as set out in Y’s EHC Plan, but it had offered a suitable alternative to meet the assessed need set out in the Plan. Miss X remained unsatisfied and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure.
25. At a CIN meeting the next day, Miss X raised concerns that no physical intervention training had been arranged to support staff in managing Y’s behaviours safely. Miss X said PBS was in place, but further practical training was required. NVR training was considered unsuitable due to the need for hand-on strategies. The CIN Plan included training in Behaviour Management and Positive Support and Pathological Demand Avoidance (PDA) for Y’s carers.
26. On 18 September 2025, the Council responded to Miss X’s stage two complaint. It considered the stage one response addressed the concerns about the difficulties providing MAPA training for the people supporting Y. It said MAPA was also know as CPI safety intervention and the Council was unable to train parents in CPI as there were no one-person restraints. The Council confirmed it had offered Miss X training in NVR.
27. The Council acknowledged the training was a statutory duty under Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 and that it formed part of the social care provision in Section H of Y’s EHC Plan. The Council clarified that going forward the social care team would request an annual review of Section H of Y’s EHC Plan to ensure the Council’s position regarding CPI training for parents and carers was clear.
28. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint. It concluded there was fault but no injustice, as alternative suitable provisions were offered. The Council offered Miss X a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused by not providing the provision in section H of Y’s EHC Plan.

Analysis

29. I am investigating this complaint from September 2024.
30. It is the Council’s view that because it offered Miss X training in NVR in January 2025, it has fulfilled its duty under Section 42, Children’s and Families Act 2014. I disagree. The Council has not provided any evidence to show how and why it considered the training was a suitable alternative to MAPA and that it would meet Y’s assessed needs. To the contrary, the records state that NVR was considered but deemed unsuitable due to the need for hands-on strategies. Furthermore, the Council offered the training to Miss X five days before it was due to commence. I do not criticise Miss X for declining to attend due to the short timescales and her availability to attend whilst also caring for Y.
31. While Miss X and the carers have received some, Behaviour Management including Positive Behaviour Support and Pathological Demand Avoidance training, this is not the training specified in Section H of the Plan. The Plan clearly states, “to provide training to (Miss Y), (Y’s PA) and anyone else who deals with (Y) during the day to be MAPA training (Management of Actual or Potential Aggression)..”
32. If the Council considered MAPA training was no longer required, then it should have issued an amended Plan providing the evidence for this rationale. Only with changes to Y’s Plan could the Council follow such an approach.
33. I have not received any evidence of regular and sustained efforts by the Council to source and provide MAPA training as required, despite acknowledging the training was a statutory duty and formed part of the social care provision in Section H of Y’s EHC Plan.
34. The Council has accepted it failed to make MAPA training available for Miss X and Y. I agree and find the Council at fault for failing to provide MAPA training as set out in Y’s EHC Plan. I now need to consider the injustice within the period I am investigating.
35. Miss X and Y have missed out on the provision in Section H of Y’s EHC Plan. I cannot say what impact the training would have had, as there are a myriad of factors that could impact Y’s safety and wellbeing and Miss X’s ability to better manage and support Y’s needs. This is due to the severity and complexity of Y’s needs. Also, the impact would have been dependent on the circumstances and Y’s support needs at the time. Therefore, the injustice it caused was a significant level of uncertainty and distress about what could have happened, had it not been for the fault, and if the MAPA training could have made a difference to Miss X and Y’s circumstances sooner.
36. The Council has already apologised to Miss X. Miss X has also accepted the Council’s symbolic payment of £500 to remedy the uncertainty, distress and frustration caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and I am satisfied with this.
37. In response to my draft decision, the Council explained that it was unable to provide MAPA training as set out in the EHC Plan. It said that providing restrictive intervention training directly to parents and privately employed carers would present unacceptable governance, licensing, and safety risks.

Back to top

Action

38. To remedy the outstanding injustice, within one month of my final decision the Council will carry out an annual review of the EHC Plan and provision in Section H. As part of the review the Council should seek input from health and social care professionals.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault causing injustice to Miss X and Y. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice caused.
41. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman