Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide appropriate software for her child, Y, to access the provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council at fault for failing to properly consider whether the software provided met Y’s individual needs and for poor communication. The Council will apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused. It should also take action to establish whether Y can effectively access the IT provision he requires.

The complaint

1. Ms X says the Council has failed to secure the appropriate software her child, Y, needs to access provision outlined in his EHC Plan. She also complains about poor communication and poor complaint handling.
2. Ms X says this has caused significant distress for her and her child and has prevented him from being able to develop his education.

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. 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

EHC Plan 

8. 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 the council can do this. 

Content of an EHC Plan

9. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section B: Special educational needs.  
• Section C: Health needs related to the child or young person’s SEN.
• Section D: Social care needs related to the child or young person’s SEN
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 

Maintaining the EHC Plan

10. 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)
11. 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. 

What happened

12. Y has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC). He has a diagnosis of dyslexia and is supported in education through an Education Otherwise Than at School package with a tutor. Y’s EHC Plan states:
• Y requires support to record his work using IT and handwriting.
• Adults should monitor and compare which method is the most efficient and comfortable method and will ensure that he has the option to choose the most effective method.
13. In September 2025, Ms X contacted her child’s caseworker, advising that Y needs access to Microsoft Word which is not available on the Chromebook. She requested the Council provide them with this subscription.
14. The caseworker responded and told Ms X she would put this forward to the funding panel to purchase the subscription.
15. In late September, Ms X asked for an update on the outcome of the panel. She told the Council Y was still unable to progress his work, and it was having a detrimental impact.
16. The Council responded to Ms X. It said it had spoken to the tutoring company and suggested Y use Google Docs, which is already on the Chromebook, as this is what others with a Chromebook usually use.
17. Ms X told the Council that software does not support the font required to support dyslexia, which is why she requested Microsoft Office. She says Y’s EHC Plan requires he be provided with adequate software to enable his education.
18. Ms X then complained to the Council. She said the Chromebook does not have appropriate software and said the caseworker did not put the funding request forward to panel as requested and had no response from her.
19. In October, the Council responded. It said it had reviewed Y’s EHC Plan, which did not specify a particular software. It said Google Docs has a range of accessible fonts and is widely used across educational settings. The Council did not uphold the complaint as it found the provision in place aligns with the requirements of Section F of Y’s EHC Plan.
20. Ms X was not satisfied with this response and escalated her complaint. She repeated her child cannot use the software provided, and stated each child has individual needs. She said, despite the lack of specification of naming software in the Plan, without a software Y can access, Section F was not being delivered.
21. In November, the Council issued its final response. It said following further discussion and consideration it had agreed Y should have access to Microsoft Word to prevent further delay to education. It told Ms X that the Council was currently exploring purchasing the package, and it would be in contact with an update.
22. In December, Ms X complained to us. She said she had still not received the software required.

Council’s response to enquiries

23. The Council provided evidence of the funding approval and the software being purchased. It told us it emailed Ms X with the link and activation key to access the software.
24. It also confirmed the caseworker did not put Ms X’s request to the funding panel. Instead, it discussed the request through its complex casework review and decided Google Docs was sufficient to meet Y’s needs. It said it also discussed this with the tutoring company.
25. It said Ms X contacted it again in April 2026 because Y's tutor was unable to access the full functionality of Microsoft Word on the Chromebook. The tutor said the online version did not have the features Y required and requested alternative software and functionality to enable Y to record his work.
26. The Council said it understood the software had been installed but the tutor was having trouble locating the functions she would normally use on a laptop with Microsoft Office installed directly. It said it received no further communication from Ms X and therefore assumed the matter had been resolved through IT support provided by the tutoring agency.
27. The Council said it considers it has delivered the provision in Section F of Y's EHC Plan because it provided him with a Chromebook and the Microsoft software package.

My findings

28. The Council has a duty to secure the special educational provision specified in Section F of an EHC Plan. Y’s EHC Plan did not specify that the Council should provide Microsoft Word, a particular font or a particular device. Therefore, the Council was entitled to consider whether Google Docs could enable Y to access the provision in his EHC Plan.
29. However, in September 2025, Ms X raised specific concerns that Google Docs was not suitable for Y. She also told the Council this was affecting Y’s ability to progress with his work. The Council was entitled to reach a professional judgement about how it would deliver the provision in Y’s Plan. However, Y’s Plan required adults to monitor and compare which method was most effective and comfortable for Y. I have not seen evidence the Council did this before deciding Google Docs was sufficient. Its reliance on the software being used by other pupils did not demonstrate it was suitable for Y. This was fault.
30. There was also fault in the Council’s communication. The caseworker told Ms X her request would go to the funding panel. It did not and was instead considered through the Council’s complex casework review. I have seen no evidence the Council clearly explained this to Ms X. This caused her avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
31. However, in April 2026, Y’s tutor told the Council the Chromebook was not functional for Y’s needs, and the online version of Microsoft Word did not provide the functionality he required. The Council says it received no further communication and assumed the matter had been resolved. I do not consider this was reasonable. The Council had been told the equipment and software it provided were not enabling Y to access the functionality he needed. It should have established whether the problem had been resolved and whether Y could access the provision in his Plan. I have seen no evidence it did so. This was fault which contributed to the injustice already outlined.

Back to top

Action

32. Within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Ms X, in line with our guidance on remedies.
• Pay Ms X £300 to recognise the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by the faults identified.
• Contact Ms X and Y’s current tutor provider to establish whether Y can effectively access the IT provision specified in his EHC Plan. If he cannot, the Council should consider what software is required and provide Ms X with a written record of its decision and reason.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault causing injustice. I have recommended actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman