Summary: Mr X complained the Council did not deliver specialist education to his daughter, Y. We found fault because the Council failed to deliver all of the provision his daughter was due to receive. This caused Mr X avoidable distress and meant Y did not receive the education she was due. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council took too long to organise education as specified in his daughter, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
2. Mr X says this caused the family avoidable distress and frustration and meant his daughter did not receive the education she was due.

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. 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

6. My investigation begins when the Council issued an updated EHC Plan on 18 August 2025. This was directed by the Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Disabilities Tribunal (the Tribunal).
7. My investigation ends when Mr X brought his complaint to us on 15 October 2025.
8. I will investigate the Council’s delivery of Education Other Than at School (EOTAS) and provision as specified in August 2025’s EHC Plan.
9. I will not investigate any matters before the issue of the August EHC Plan. Matters complained of are either out of time for us to investigate or are too closely linked to the matters considered at the Tribunal meaning we are unable to investigate.
10. I will not investigate the organisation of a Clinical Psychologist’s report as this was linked to the Tribunal process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mr X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Special educational needs

13. A child with SEN may have an EHC Plan. This 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 (Section B), education (Section F), or the name of the educational placement (Section I). Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 
14. 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).

Education other than at school

15. EOTAS is a legal arrangement where a child or young person receives their special educational provision outside of a traditional school or college setting.
16. A council is responsible for arranging and paying for the provision.

What happened

17. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
18. Y is a primary school aged child. She had an EHC Plan before the period of my investigation. Mr X had appealed this to the Tribunal in 2024.
19. Before the Tribunal had made its decision, Mr X submitted a complaint to the Council. The Council sent its stage one response early in July 2025.
20. The Tribunal made its decision about Y’s EHC Plan at the end of July.
21. Mr X escalated his complaint to stage two of the Council’s process early in August. He said Y had already missed out on a lot of education and he was concerned the EOTAS provision agreed by the Tribunal would not be in place for September.
22. The Council issued the updated EHC Plan in mid-August. This stated Y would receive EOTAS. Specifically, Y’s EHC Plan listed EOTAS provision as:
• two hours per week online provision which would be directed by the teacher working with Y face to face;
• an appropriate adult to support Y when she was accessing the online provision;
• two hours provision per week spent at an outdoor setting;
• two hours per week of one-to-one swimming; and
• two hours of occupational therapy (OT) per half term with six more hours split over the year for administration and report writing.
23. Y’s EHC Plan also included weekly 45-minute speech and language therapy (SALT) sessions.
24. The Council began trying to organise provision the same day as the amended EHC Plan was issued. It communicated this to the family the next day and discussed progress on the telephone a few days later.
25. On 8 September, the Council emailed the family to advise availability for swimming sessions and confirm Mrs X had said she wanted to place the outdoor provision on hold until Y’s psychologist’s assessment had been done. The Council said it was continuing to liaise with OT providers. It began to search for SALT provision.
26. On 12 September, the Council emailed Mrs X to say that an OT provider had been found and agreed. Y would be placed on its waiting list to start her sessions.
27. Mrs X emailed the Council on 16 September to say she wanted the outdoor provision to start as soon as possible.
28. The Council discussed progress in organising the package with the family on 24 September and then confirmed the discussion via email. The Council:
• confirmed the family advised the agreed psychologist had not yet been in touch;
• confirmed agreed payments for sundries; and
• confirmed the family had asked for swimming sessions to be put on hold due to swimming availability clashing with Y’s tutoring combined with the distance to a site which did have availability.
29. The Council issued its stage two final complaint response on 28 September. In relation to EOTAS, this:
• repeated the provision listed above;
• listed agreed payments for a laptop, software packages and other linked costs;
• said tuition was already in place;
• advised the family had said it wanted to place outdoor provision and swimming on hold until a psychologist’s report had been completed;
• said the OT sessions should begin after October’s half term holidays; and
• signposted the family to us.
30. Mr X brought his complaint to us in October 2025.

Analysis

31. As soon as it issued Y’s updated EHC Plan in August 2025, the Council started to make enquiries to try and get EOTAS provision in place. This was for swimming, outdoor provision and tuition. It also began to try and source a psychologist to assess Y.
32. I have considered how much of Y’s Section F and EOTAS provision was in place between September and mid-October 2025. Evidence shows:
• online provision was agreed and in place early in September 2025;
• Mrs X had asked for swimming to be placed on hold but for outdoor provision to start as soon as possible (after mid-September);
• the Council had found an OT provider but that Y was not yet receiving any sessions with it;
• the Council was making enquiries with SALT providers to try and source provision; and
• the Council made a referral to an outdoor education provider at the end of September but that this provision was not agreed until 24 October 2025.
33. I acknowledge the family had asked for swimming to be placed on hold. I do not therefore consider there was any fault in the Council not delivering this to Y despite it being in her EHC Plan.
34. I do not agree with the stage two response that the family had also asked for outdoor provision to be placed on hold. I do acknowledge that Mrs X originally said this. However, a few days later and before the stage two response, she asked for it to be arranged as soon as possible. I do not consider the small interim period in-between saying to pause and then changing her mind had a significant impact in the Council’s ability to organise this. I am therefore satisfied that not delivering outdoor provision until after the period of this investigation was therefore fault. It caused Mr X avoidable distress and meant Y did not access provision. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this.
35. The Council did not begin to contact any SALT providers until 8 September 2025. There is no evidence to suggest any provision was in place during the time of my investigation. This was fault. It caused Mr X avoidable distress and meant Y did not access services she was due. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
36. The Council found and arranged an OT provider but Y did not access any sessions during the period of my investigation. There is no evidence to suggest she did so during the remaining portion of the half term after the end of my investigation period. Not delivering OT sessions to Y during this time was fault. It caused avoidable distress to Mr X and meant Y did not access appropriate services due to her. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Mr X for the identified injustice; and
• make a symbolic payment to Mr X of £250 to recognise Y’s lost provision during the investigation period.
38. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
39. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
40. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

41. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman