Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council wrongly refusing Mrs X’s request for a personal budget and refusing to reimburse her for the cost of therapy she arranged for her child. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council wrongly refused her request for a personal budget. She also says the Council refused to reimburse the cost of therapy she arranged for her child, B.
2. Mrs X wants the Council to reimburse her therapy costs, provide a personal budget, and make a financial payment.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. The Council agreed an education other than at school package in October 2025. The following month, Mrs X complained the Council had refused her request for a personal budget and had not funded the therapeutic provision in B’s education, health and care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X says she has paid for a therapist herself to provide this support.
7. The Council explained Mrs X’s request for a personal budget was declined as the request was to support B’s personal hygiene needs, and therefore not a required educational provision need.
8. The Council said it had secured the provision in the EHC Plan. It said the package included 15 hours of tuition and four hours a week from a therapeutic alternative provision provider. The Council said it would consider increasing the therapeutic element when B was able to access it, as it considered she was not yet ready for full-time education. It also said it did not consider the therapist Mrs X proposed was suitable.
9. There is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council. The Council considered Mrs X’s request for a personal budget but decided the provision was not required to meet B’s educational needs and could be delivered by the alternative provision provider. This is a decision the Council was entitled to make, and we cannot question its merits. The EHC Plan says B should receive alternative therapeutic provision for up to 10 hours. The Council’s decision to provide four hours initially, as part of a gradual approach to increasing B’s provision, is not evidence of fault.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman