Summary: The Council delayed completing an education, health and care needs assessment, delayed putting in place education following an exclusion, delayed explaining the funding process for the alternative provision the school arranged, failed to keep Mrs X up to date or respond to emails and gave Mrs X incorrect information. That caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty and led to Y missing out on some education. An apology and payment to Mrs X is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complained the Council:
• delayed completing an education, health and care needs assessment (EHCNA);
• delayed providing funding to school A for the alternative provision;
• failed to ensure her daughter, Y, received full-time education;
• failed to ensure Y received the provision in her education, health and care plan (EHC Plan); and
• failed to respond her communications.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s actions have had a significant impact on Y’s mental health as well as an impact on her whole family.

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 recommend 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(i), as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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.
9. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. I am exercising the Ombudsman’s discretion to investigate what has happened since April 2024 even though that is more than 12 months before the complaint to us. That is because that is when the Council agreed to undertake an EHCNA. I am not investigating the earlier period between December 2023 and April 2024 as the Council refused the initial application for an EHCNA and Mrs X had a right of appeal against that decision. That puts that part of the complaint outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
11. I am not investigating the failure to provide full-time education or special educational needs provision to Y after January 2025. That is because I am satisfied Mrs X had, and exercised, a right of appeal about the type of provision recorded in section I of Y’s EHC Plan. That means any education or special educational needs provision after the right of appeal arose falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs X's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
13. Mrs X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Special educational needs

14. A child or young person with special educational needs (SEN) 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 council can do this.
15. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice is statutory guidance (the code of practice). It 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:
• Where a 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 an EHC Plan within 16 weeks.
16. Parents have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal if they disagree with the special educational provision, the school named in their child's EHC Plan, or the fact no school or other provider is named.
17. The council has a duty to secure the special educational provision in an EHC Plan for the child or young person. (Section 42 Children and Families Act).

What happened

18. Y has special educational needs and was attending a mainstream school which I will refer to as school A. Mrs X asked the Council to complete an EHCNA in December 2023. The Council refused that request. After receiving further information on 8 April 2024 Council agreed to carry out an EHCNA. The Council agreed to issue an EHC Plan on 23 October.
19. The Council told Mrs X its panel had recommended a mainstream school with additional funding. The Council also told Mrs X about a potential option with placement B and asked Mrs X for her views. Mrs X told the Council she intended to appeal for a specialist school placement for Y. Mrs X told the Council she was interested in placement B.
20. School A permanently excluded Y on 22 October. The Council raised concerns about the legality of that exclusion. That resulted in school A rescinding the exclusion. By that point the Council had begun arrangements to put alternative provision in place. Between 18 and 29 November Y received education at a pupil referral unit. After that, Mrs X identified some alternative provision for Y for six hours per week. The school funded that out of the budget the Council provided, with a top up from the Council. Y did not return to school A.
21. In response to a query from Mrs X’s MP in December 2024 the Council said school A had continued to set work for Y.
22. On 8 January 2025 the Council issued a final EHC Plan naming mainstream in section I. Mrs X sought mediation and then appealed.
23. The Council consulted placement B on 23 January. The Council’s panel also considered Mrs X’s request for a specialist school placement but did not consider it had sufficient evidence to support it.
24. The Council issued an updated final EHC Plan on 24 January. That continued to record a mainstream placement as suitable in section I.
25. In February 2025 Mrs X provided the Council with further evidence for specialist provision for Y. On 12 February the Council’s panel considered the request for specialist provision and agreed to seek an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) or social, emotional or mental health (SEMH) placement.
26. In February placement B told the Council it did not consider it was a suitable provision for Y.
27. Mrs X and Y visited placement B in March 2025 and told the Council they considered it a suitable placement. By June 2025 the Council had noted some improvement in Y’s presentation and consulted placement B again. Placement B continued to say it did not consider itself a suitable placement for Y.
28. The Council consulted other schools in June 2025, none of which offered a placement.
29. The Council consulted further schools in July 2025 and one of those schools offered Y a placement. Mrs X made clear she did not consider that school suitable.
30. In November 2025 Mrs X chased the Council as the alternative provider had not received payment. The Council sorted that out in December 2025. The Council then wrote to the school in January 2026 to explain the process for it to claim funding for the alternative provision.
31. Following tribunal the Council agreed an education other than at school package for Y.

Analysis

32. The Council accepts it delayed completing an EHC needs assessment. The Council should have issued a final EHC Plan by 15 July 2024. However, the Council did not issue a final EHC Plan until January 2025. Failure to issue the final EHC Plan within the timescales set in the code of practice is fault. I am satisfied that caused Mrs X distress and leaves her with some uncertainty about whether the outcome for Y would have been different if the Council had issued the EHC Plan on time. The Council has apologised and offered Mrs X £600, which she has accepted. The Council also says it has developed a new process to prevent delays in future. I consider that a suitable outcome for this part of the complaint.
33. Mrs X says the Council delayed providing funding to school A after it issued an EHC Plan in January 2025. Mrs X is concerned about that because it meant the alternative provision in place was threatened when the Council did not pay the invoices.
34. Having considered the documentary evidence I consider it likely, on the balance of probability, the issue arose because of confusion about whether the funding for the alternative provision was covered by the funding school A received for Y. The documentary evidence suggests the Council recognised the funding it provided to school A would not cover all the alternative provision and therefore the Council would top that up. However, there is no documentary evidence to show the Council told school A, before January 2026, how to arrange the additional funding. That is fault and caused Mrs X distress and led to her having to go to time and trouble to sort the matter out herself.
35. Mrs X says the Council failed to ensure Y received full-time education between October 2024 and June 2025 and then only provided six hours alternative provision per week.
36. The evidence I have seen satisfies me school A excluded Y in October 2024. The Council was responsible for putting in place education from the sixth day of exclusion. However, the evidence I have seen satisfies me Y did not begin receiving education until 18 November, although I recognise the Council had begun the process of identifying a placement and had arranged transport. Nevertheless, delay putting in place education after the sixth day of exclusion is fault. That means Y missed out on education provision between the sixth day of her exclusion and when the Council put in place provision in November 2024.
37. The situation becomes complicated after that because school A rescinded the exclusion. That meant Y was on the roll of the school. That was also during the period when the Council was carrying out the EHC needs assessment. I understand school A made online learning available and sent some work home. I also note though the Council accepts Y had significant anxiety about attending school. In those circumstances I would have expected the Council to record its view about whether its section 19 duty was engaged and, if not, why not. Failure to do that is fault.
38. I also recognise though because of Y’s anxiety that may have restricted her ability to access both education and alternative provision. In those circumstances I could not reach a safe conclusion about whether the Council would have accepted a section 19 responsibility to provide education had it properly considered it in November 2024. I therefore consider Mrs X’s injustice is her uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different.
39. I recognise Y continued to receive limited education from January 2025 onwards. I also recognise Y did not have a school placement for September 2025. However, as the Council had issued a final EHC Plan in January 2025 naming mainstream as the type of school in section I and as Mrs X appealed about section I this puts any failure to provide education after January 2025 outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. I therefore cannot comment on any failure to provide education after January 2025.
40. The Council accepts it failed to put in place the special educational needs provision in Y’s EHC Plan from January 2025 onwards. The Council has a duty to secure the education provision specified in section F of an EHC Plan. However, in this case Mrs X appealed to tribunal about the Council’s failure to find and specify a school in section I. That was therefore a matter for tribunal to resolve. As the Council did not take on responsibility for identifying alternative provision in the interim as school A remained responsible for those arrangements the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to comment on any failure to put in place special educational needs provision once the appeal right arose.
41. Mrs X complains about the lack of updates from her caseworker and the caseworker failing to respond to correspondence. The Council accepts its responses have been poor at times. That is fault. There is also evidence of long periods with no contact. That is also fault. I am satisfied that caused Mrs X distress and led to her having to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint.
42. Mrs X says the Council intervened to get school A to lift Y’s permanent exclusion and failed to tell her. The documentary evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council initially asked school A to remove the permanent exclusion. That was because the Council considered the permanent exclusion unlawful as it took place during a period when it was carrying out an EHC needs assessment. In those circumstances I cannot criticise the Council for contacting school A. However, the Council should have kept Mrs X up to date with what was happening and failure to do that is fault.
43. Mrs X says the Council advised her to contact placement B in November 2024 to arrange a trial day when it had not made contact with it. I am satisfied the Council apologised for the misunderstanding. The evidence I have seen also satisfies me the Council did not consult placement B until January 2025. Giving Mrs X incorrect information is fault.
44. As I set out earlier, I am satisfied the financial remedy the Council has offered Mrs X for the delay completing the EHC needs assessment is satisfactory. However, I consider Mrs X has also experienced further distress and has had to go to time and trouble to sort matters out for herself in relation to other areas of the complaint covered in this statement. Y also missed out on some education between the sixth day of her exclusion and 18 November 2024. I consider an apology and an additional payment of £750 an appropriate remedy for that. That represents a distress payment of £500 and £250 to reflect the missing education. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.

Back to top

Action

45. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mrs X and Y for the distress and uncertainty they experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mrs X £750.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

47. I find fault causing injustice. The action the Council will take is sufficient to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman