Summary: We found fault with the Council delaying outside the statutory timescales issuing Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education and Education, Health and Care Plan provision to Mrs X’s child. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X, provide a symbolic financial payment for her child’s missed provision and for her distress and for the Council to put in place the remaining missing Education, Health and Care Plan provision.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed completion of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan needs assessment outside the statutory timescales by nine months. Mrs X said when the Council did produce the Final Education, Health and Care Plan, it failed to put in place Speech and Language Therapy and Johansen Individualised Auditory Stimulation support.
2. Mrs X also complained she had to fund the assessments for the Education, Health and Care Plan herself which the Council used to inform the final plan.
3. Mrs X also complained her child missed education throughout the 2024/2025 academic year to varying degrees.
4. Mrs X says she also incurred legal costs through submitting Pre-Action Protocol letters and seeking legal advice to try to resolve the issues she was experiencing.
5. Mrs X says because of the Council’s fault her child missed education. Mrs X says she has incurred expenses for sourcing the relevant assessments and issuing legal proceedings. Mrs X says she has also lost earnings and experienced emotional strain and stress because of the Council’s fault.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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)
7. 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)
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
9. 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)
10. 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.
11. 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)
12. 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

13. I have investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delays through assessment of her child for an Education, Health and Care Plan. I have also investigated Mrs X’s child’s missed education and any failure of the Council to deliver her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan provision from its production in May 2025 until the October 2025 half-term.
14. I have not investigated matters after October 2025. This is because the Council issued its stage two complaint response in September 2025. The Ombudsman must give the Council opportunity to investigate a complaint before we investigate. I have exercised my discretion to investigate matters up to the end of the half-term following the Council’s stage two response as this is a logical point to end my investigation.
15. I have also not investigated any matters associated with Mrs X’s appeal to the Tribunal. This includes the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and any matters intrinsically linked to the appeal. However, I can investigate the delivery of Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan provision from its production until the end point of my investigation as per its wording in the pre-appeal Education, Health and Care Plan.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Rules and Regulations

EHC Plan

18. 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. 
19. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’) sets out the process for carrying out EHC assessments and producing EHC Plans. The guidance is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014. It says the following: 

• Where the council receives a request for an EHC needs assessment it must decide whether to agree to the assessment and send its decision to the parent of the child or the young person within six weeks. 
• The process of assessing needs and developing EHC Plans “must be carried out in a timely manner”. Steps must be completed as soon as practicable. 
• If the council goes on to carry out an assessment, it must decide whether to issue an EHC Plan or refuse to issue a Plan within 16 weeks.
• If the council goes on to issue an EHC Plan, the whole process from the point when an assessment is requested until the final EHC Plan is issued must take no more than 20 weeks (unless certain specific circumstances apply);  

20. As part of the assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). This includes: 

• the child’s educational placement; 
• medical advice and information from health care professionals involved with the child; 
• psychological advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP); 
• social care advice and information; 
• advice and information from any person requested by the parent or young person, where the council considers it reasonable; and 
• any other advice and information the council considers appropriate for a satisfactory assessment. 

21. The council must not seek further advice if it already has advice and “the person providing the advice, the local authority and the child’s parent or the young person are all satisfied that it is sufficient for the assessment process”. In making this decision the council and the person providing the advice should ensure the advice remains current.  
22. Those consulted have a maximum of six weeks to provide the advice. 
23. The council may decide to seek additional advice, for example from an Occupational Therapist (OT) or Speech and Language Therapist (SALT), or the child’s parent or young person may request this. The council should decide if this is necessary based on the individual circumstances of the case.
24. Once the Council completes the EHC Plan it has a legal duty to deliver the educational and social care provision set out in the plan. The local health care provider will have the duty to deliver the health care provision. The Ombudsman can look at any failure by the Council to deliver the provision within an EHC Plan.

Section 19 duty

25. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that councils 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.

Establishing a section 19 duty

26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.

Good practice guidance

29. 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)
30. 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.

31. 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.

What happened

32. In March 2024, Mrs X requested an EHC Plan needs assessment for her child, Y, from the Council. The Council agreed to complete an assessment in April 2024.
33. As part of the EHC Plan needs assessment, the Council became aware that Y would not be attending school from September 2024.
34. Mrs X submitted a Pre-Action Protocol letter to the Council in August 2024 detailing concerns about the EHC Plan needs assessment process and Y’s access to education.
35. In October 2024, the Council issued a response to Mrs X’s Pre-Action Protocol letter. The Council said:
• It accepted it did not meet the statutory timescales for production of Y’s EHC Plan.
• It accepted it has known since at least July 2024 that Y would not be attending school from September 2024 and that it has a Section 19 duty to Y to provide Alternative Provision of education. The Council offered £1,200 for Y’s missed education for the first half-term of the 2024/2025 academic year.
• It accepted it should reimburse Mrs X for her costs in sourcing SALT, OT and Educational Psychologist (EP) assessments and reports for Y which the Council has used to inform Y’s EHC Plan needs assessment. The costs of these reports totalled £1,726.86.
• It does not accept responsibility for reimbursing the costs of Y’s ADHD or Irlen Syndrome assessments or reports because Mrs X commissioned these reports before requesting an EHC Plan needs assessment from the Council.
36. At the start of November 2024, the Council agreed to provide 15 hours of Alternative Provision of education for Y. The Council discussed this with Mrs X who requested a different provider and advised that Y would not be able to focus for the length of time currently offered by the Council on purely academic learning. The Council agreed for the different provider Mrs X requested and offered 15 hours again; Mrs X requested the Council provides 5-6 hours maximum of academic learning for Y at this time. Mrs X asked if the Council could explore provision which was non-academic to provide additional provision for Y. The Council said one particular provider was at capacity, but it would explore other providers for Y.
37. The Council started to provide 6 hours each week academic Alternative Provision of education for Y in mid-November 2024.
38. In January 2025, the Council issued a first Draft EHC Plan for Y. Mrs X provided comments on this Draft EHC Plan and the Council issued a revised Draft EHC Plan in February 2025.
39. In February 2025, Mrs X reiterated her request for additional Alternative Provision of education for Y.
40. The Council increased Y’s Alternative Provision of education to 11 hours each week from the start of the summer term, in April 2024, of the 2024/2025 academic year. And, later increased provision to 16 hours in May 2025.
41. In mid-May 2025, the Council issued Y’s Final EHC Plan. Of relevance to Mrs X’s complaint, Y’s EHC Plan included Section F provision for SALT and Johansen Individualised Auditory Stimulation (JIAS). Section F of the EHC Plan also included provision for the Council to deliver a “An interim package of support that is gradual and focuses on personal development and engagement until a placement is secured” by a “bespoke educational provider”.
42. The Council confirmed Y’s SALT provision would start in September 2025.
43. Mrs X requested a further 5 hours of Alternative Provision of education for Y in May 2025.
44. In July 2025, Mrs X appealed Y’s EHC Plan to the Tribunal.
45. Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council in August 2025. Mrs X said:
• The Council has only provided 16 hours of education per week for Y since May 2025 despite the Final EHC Plan outlining an entitlement to 25 hours per week.
• The Council provided no education from September 2024 to November 2024 and only 6 hours from November 2024.
• She has incurred costs in sourcing Y’s alternative provision of education because the Council was only providing 6 hours each week.
• Since production of the Final EHC Plan, the Council has not provided SALT or JIAS provision for Y.
• The Council took 65 weeks to produce Y’s EHC Plan rather than 20 weeks.
• She incurred costs sourcing SALT, OT, EP, Irlens, ASD and ADHD assessments for Y’s EHC Plan.
• She has been unable to work because of the Council’s failure to produce education for Y.
46. In August 2025, the Council agreed for a provider to provide Y with the SALT support from Y’s EHC Plan and to find out if they could also provide the JIAS provision. The Council also agreed to increase Y’s Alternative Provision of education. The provider told the Council in September 2025 it could not provide the JIAS provision.
47. In September 2025, Y had access to 25 hours of alternative provision of education.
48. In September 2025, the Council provided a stage one complaint response to Mrs X. The Council said:
• It provided 6 hours of Alternative Provision of education for Y from November 2024 to May 2025 and increased this to 16 hours in May 2025 until the end of the academic year.
• It apologised it had not yet arranged Y’s JIAS or SALT provision from their EHC Plan.
• It has now found a SALT provider for Y but waiting on confirmation of when this will start.
• It has agreed 25 hours of alternative provision of education for Y going forwards.
• It would pay Mrs X £2,736 in recognition of Y’s missed education from November 2024 to May 2025 and £1,024 in recognition of the missed provision, including SALT and JIAS, from May 2025 to the end of the academic year.
• It offered Mrs X £900 for the EHC Plan needs assessment delays and a further £250 as a goodwill gesture for the stress Mrs X incurred.
• It previously offered Mrs X £2,926.86 for reimbursement of assessments and some missed education but was not sure if this had been paid.
• Anything missing from Y’s EHC Plan would be addressed through the tribunal process.
49. Mrs X sought consideration of her complaint at stage two. Mrs X said:
• The Council had not addressed Y’s missed education from September 2024 to November 2024.
• The Council has refused reimbursement for the assessments she sourced for Y’s EHC Plan. Mrs X said this was despite the Council relying on these assessments and reports.
• She wanted reimbursement for the Pre-Action Protocol letter and associated legal costs she incurred in complaining to the Council.
• She wanted the Council to calculate the EHC Plan needs assessment delays at £100 per month.
• She wanted the Council to pay her £300 per month, £150 per provision, for Y’s missed SALT and JIAS provision from May 2025 until the Council put this in place.
• She has incurred significant financial losses because of needing to resign from her job to care for her children because of the Council’s failings.
50. The Council issued its stage two complaint response in September 2025 reiterating its offer from stage one. The Council directed Mrs X to the Ombudsman with her complaint. The Council paid Mrs X the £2,926.86 offered in October 2024 in September 2025.

Analysis

EHC Plan delays

51. Following Mrs X’s request for an EHC Plan Needs Assessment for Y in March 2024, the Council had six weeks to decide whether to assess Y for an EHC Plan. The Council decided to assess Y within six weeks of Mrs X’s request. The Council met the statutory timescales and I do not find fault.
52. The Council should have decided whether to issue an EHC Plan for Y in June 2024 and produced a final EHC Plan for Y in July 2024. The Council did not produce a final EHC Plan for Y until May 2025. This meant the Council delayed by 42 weeks, just over 9 months, outside the statutory timescales in producing Y’s final EHC Plan; this was fault. This fault caused Miss X distress, frustration and uncertainty and also delayed her appeal rights to the Tribunal.
53. The Council offered Mrs X £900 for the injustice caused by its delays outside the statutory timescales in its stage 1 complaint response. This offer amounts to £100 per month and is in line with both the amount Mrs X requested and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies for such matters. I consider this offer of £900 is appropriate to address the injustice caused by the Council’s fault.

EHC Plan reports and assessments

54. As part of Y’s EHC Plan Needs Assessment, the Council had a duty to get advice from relevant professionals; this included an Educational Psychologist. The Council must also get advice and information from any other person the local authority thinks is appropriate.
55. The Council used Mrs X’s privately sourced Educational Psychologist assessment and report when producing Y’s EHC Plan. This means Mrs X has fulfilled the Council’s statutory duty to get Educational Psychologist advice. The Council accepted this position in its response to Mrs X in October 2024 and offered to reimburse her the cost Mrs X incurred. This was appropriate action for the Council to take.
56. The Council also accepted reimbursements for Mrs X’s privately sourced OT and SALT assessments and reports. The Council did this because Mrs X sourced these during the time period of Y’s EHC Plan needs assessment and the Council relied on both reports when producing Y’s EHC Plan. The Council’s offer to reimburse these costs was a proportionate offer from the Council.
57. The Council rejected reimbursement for Mrs X’s ADHD assessment and Irlens assessment. The Council decided this because Mrs X had already privately sourced these reports before applying for an EHC Plan needs assessment of Mrs X. Mrs X sourced an ADHD assessment and report before the EHC Plan needs assessment but the ADHD assessment and report the Council used in the EHC Plan was a second set Mrs X obtained later in 2024, after the application for the EHC Plan Needs Assessment. However, the Council was still entitled to not rebate the ADHD assessment along with the Irlens assessment. This is because:
• The Council did not have an explicit statutory duty to get ADHD or Irlens assessments so there was not requirement on it to get the assessments Mrs X sourced.
• The Council relied on these assessments as available, relevant, information when producing Y’s EHC Plan because Mrs X made these available to the Council; the Council was entitled to do this.
• Mrs X got the Irlens assessment before the Council agreed to assess Y for an EHC Plan meaning it had no opportunity to advise Mrs X that such an assessment would be at her own expense.
58. Mrs X got the ASD assessment during the EHC Plan needs assessment time period. The Council has not referenced this in its October 2024 letter because Mrs X only provided this to the Council in November 2024. The Council has not relied on this ASD assessment in the Final EHC Plan produced in May 2025 and this is not included within Section K of the plan. While Y’s EHC Plan includes reference to Y having a diagnosis of ASD, this diagnosis was included within Y’s ADHD report, which the Council has relied on. Since the Council did not rely on the ASD assessment when producing Y’s May 2025 EHC Plan, there is no grounds to reimburse the ASD assessment.
59. The Council has accepted it should have relied on this report when producing Y’s EHC Plan and has accepted fault for this. The Council should apologise for the injustice this fault caused.
60. Any consideration of the ASD assessment as part of the Tribunal proceedings and Y’s subsequent EHC Plans would be a matter for the Tribunal to consider and outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
61. The Council has already reimbursed Mrs X for the cost of the EP, SALT and OT assessments and reports. I do not consider the Council need take any further action to address this aspect of Mrs X’s complaint.

EHC Plan provision

62. Once the Council produced Y’s EHC Plan in May 2025, it had a duty to deliver Y’s EHC Plan provision as worded in the plan.
63. The Council failed to deliver Y’s full bespoke educational package until September 2025. I have addressed this further in paragraphs 66 to 75.
64. The Council has failed to evidence it has delivered Y’s SALT provision and JIAS provision by the end point of this investigation in October 2025.
65. The Council was at fault for not providing Y’s full EHC Plan. This fault meant Y went without the full provision they were entitled to. The Council should apologise for this missed provision. I have addressed this lost provision further in paragraphs 66 to 76.

Provision of education

66. A council must consider Section 19 alternative provision of education for a child who has been absent from school for an extended period of time. The Council has accepted it was aware from at least July 2024 that Y would be absent from school for an extended period of time from September 2024. The Council also accepted that because of Y’s absence it owed a Section 19 duty to provide Alternative Provision of education.
67. From September 2024 to the October 2024 half-term, the Council has acknowledged its fault by failing to fulfil its duty to provide Alternative Provision of education for Y. The Council provided a symbolic financial payment of £1,200 to Mrs X in September 2025 for this fault.
68. In the Council’s stage one complaint response it has also accepted fault for failing to provide full suitable Alternative Provision of education from November 2024 to the end of the academic year. The Council offered an award of £2,736 as a symbolic financial payment from November 2024 to May 2025 and a further £1,024 for the period May 2025 to the end of the academic year.
69. Since the Council has accepted fault, there is no dispute about this. What is relevant is the suitability of the financial awards offered by the Council.
70. Our guidance on remedies for a loss of educational provision recommends a payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The exact figure should be based on the impact on the child. This should take into account factors such as the amount of provision put in place, a child’s individual needs and whether they are in a key academic year.
71. The Council has provided the maximum award the Ombudsman would provide for missed education from September 2024 to the October 2024 at £2,400 per term, amounting to a payment of £1,200. I would not require more from the Council and consider the Council’s payment addresses the injustice caused by Y’s missed education during that time.
72. From November 2024 to May 2025, the Council has offered an award of £2,736 for a period of about two full terms. This is the mid-to lower end of our awards for missed education. During this time, the Council provided Y with 6 hours of tuition per week as alternative provision of education rather than the 15 hours offered it initially offered. This is because Mrs X asked the Council to split the provision into tuition and non-academic provision to ensure it was accessible provision for Y. The Council agreed to this as suitable alternative provision for Y. The Council promised to explore what non-academic provision it could arrange alongside the 6 hours of tuition.
73. The Council initially acted appropriately to discharge its Section 19 duty to provide Alternative Provision of education for Y but then failed to explore non-academic provision despite agreeing to do this. The Council was at fault causing Y to not receive full suitable provision. The Council also delayed in reviewing the suitability of Y’s access to education and increasing this following Mrs X contact in February 2025; this was fault. While the Council was at fault, I would not recommend a higher financial award from the Council and consider the Council’s payment addresses the injustice caused by Y’s missed education during that time while taking into account the provision it did arrange.
74. From May 2025 to the end of the academic year, totalling about half a term, the Council has offered £1,024 which equates to about £2,048 over a full term. During this time, the Council provided Y with 16 hours of educational provision and some of Y’s EHC Plan provision. However, the Council has accepted it did not provide Y’s full bespoke education or their SALT and JIAS provision. I consider this award of £1,024 is appropriate to reflect this loss of provision from May 2025 to the end of the academic year.
75. From September 2025, the Council provided a 25 hours bespoke educational package for Y. This educational package considered Y’s individual needs and was in place until the end point of this investigation. Any new dispute about this ongoing provision would be the subject of a new complaint.
76. As noted in paragraph 64, the Council has failed to evidence delivery of Y’s JIAS or SALT provision to the end point of this investigation. While the Council has provided suitable recommendations to address this loss of provision until the end of the academic year 2024/2025, Y has continued to go without this provision. The Council should put this provision in place without delay, unless it has already done so since the end point of our investigation, and provide a further symbolic payment for the loss of this provision since September 2024.

Other costs and losses

77. Mrs X has requested payment of the legal fees she incurred using a solicitor and issuing Pre-Action Protocol letters to the Council about this matter.
78. The Council presented no barriers to Mrs X raising a complaint with it, without the need for legal assistance, and Mrs X could have brought her complaint to the Ombudsman free of charge. Use of a solicitor and taking legal action against the Council is a choice for an individual to make in the knowledge that such action would come at a cost. While the Council’s fault prompted Mrs X to seek legal assistance, other avenues were available to Mrs X and I do not consider the Council’s fault directly caused the costs Mrs X incurred.
79. Mrs X has also requested loss of earnings from the Council. Mrs X says she has been unable to work because she is the single parent of three children with significant and complex needs and the Council’s fault has meant Y’s needs have gone unmet.
80. While there is no dispute the Council’s fault caused Y’s needs to go unmet, I cannot draw a clear and conclusive causal link between the Council’s fault and the Mrs X’s loss of earnings. This is because Mrs X has referenced her other children as part of the reason for her needing to stop work, of which I have not investigated or made findings of fault about in this matter. And, Mrs X chose to stop work, rather than utilising other options such as childcare, as her means of managing the situation. Because of how the Ombudsman operates and our need for direct causal links, disputes about loss of earnings are better resolved by the courts.
81. In the Council’s stage one complaint response it offered Mrs X £250 as a goodwill gesture for the stress Mrs X incurred in addition to the other awards. Part of the awards offered for the EHC Plan delays and loss of educational provision directly address the impact of such matters on Mrs X and not just her child. However, this £250 award offered by the Council is for the general stress and inconvenience Mrs X has experienced because of the overarching issues from March 2024 until September 2025. I consider this is a suitable offer in the circumstances of Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Action

82. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council will:
• Provide an apology to Mrs X for the injustice caused to her and her child by the delays outside the statutory timescales in producing her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, failure to rely on the ASD assessment and report when producing the May 2025 Education, Health and Care Plan, the delay in providing Mrs X’s child’s full Education, Health and Care Plan provision from May 2025 until the October 2025 half term and the failure to fulfil its full duty to provide Alternative Provision of education for Mrs X’s child for the academic year 2024/2025.
• Provide a payment to Mrs X of £900 as a symbolic gesture for the injustice caused to Mrs X and her child by the delays outside the statutory timescales in producing her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
• Provide a symbolic payment totalling £4,300 to Mrs X in acknowledgement of her child’s missed education from November 2024 to July 2025 and missed educational provision from their Education, Health and Care Plan from May 2025 to the October 2025 half term.
• Put in place Mrs X’s child’s Speech and Language Therapy and Johansen Individualised Auditory Stimulation provision as outlined in the Education, Health and Care Plan, if not already in place.
• Provide a payment of £250 to Mrs X for the stress and inconvenience caused to her through the fault of the Council.
83. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

84. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman