The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mr Y complained on behalf of Ms X, that the Council did not properly assess her child D’s special educational needs, and did not provide suitable alternative education while they were out of school. There was fault in how the Council followed its assessment and planning process and how it considered its duties to provide suitable alternative education. This meant D missed education, and caused avoidable distress for D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Ms X. The Council agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy, review D’s school transport arrangements, review relevant procedures, and issue reminders to its staff.
The complaint
Mr Y complains on behalf Ms X, about how the Council assessed the special educational needs (SEN) of her child, D, after she asked it to do so in November 2020. Ms X also says the Council failed to provide suitable alternative provision when D could not attend school from November 2020 to November 2021. She also says the Council did not address all the complaints she made about this through its complaints procedure. Because of this Ms X says: D lost one year of education and SEN support; the delay in D’s Education Health and Care (EHC) plan meant they could only get a placement in a specialist setting outside the Council’s area. Travelling this far for school affects D’s behaviour due to the nature of their special needs. This in turn impacts on the whole family and Ms X has had to seek specialist support; Ms X had to spend time and trouble pursuing the Council, ensuring D’s EHC plan was correct, and providing alternative provision to D while they were out of school; and the family experienced stress at an already difficult time.
Ms X is not seeking a specific remedy but wants the Council to put things right and improve its services to ensure this does not happen again.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended) When considering complaints, if there is a conflict of evidence, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened.
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone can appeal to a tribunal. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to appeal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended) The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
This complaint involves events that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government introduced a range of new and frequently updated rules and guidance during this time. We can consider whether a council followed the relevant legislation, guidance and our published “Good Administrative Practice during the response to COVID-19”.
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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered: information provided by Ms X and Mr Y, and discussed the complaint with Mr Y; documentation and comments from the Council; relevant law and guidance; the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Jurisdiction and Guidance on Remedies ; and the Ombudsman’s 2016 focus report, ‘Out of school, out of mind?’.
Mr Y, Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
What I found
Education Health and Care (EHC) assessments and plans A child with special educational needs (SEN) may have an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. This sets out the child’s needs and the arrangements that should be made to meet them.
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 Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Regulations 2014. Councils should have regard to statutory guidance and only depart from it where there are good reasons.
Where a council receives a request for an EHC needs assessment it must give its decision within six weeks whether to agree to the assessment. 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. (SEND Regulations 2014 section 5, SEND Code paragraphs 9.17 and 9.39) As part of the assessment councils must gather advice from relevant professionals. This includes: the child’s education 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(s)/guardian(s), where the council considers it reasonable; and any other advice and information a council considers appropriate for a satisfactory assessment.
(SEND Regulations 2014 section 6) When a council sends a draft plan to a child’s parent(s)/guardian(s) it must give them at least 15 days, beginning with the day it sent the draft plan, to: make representations about the content of the draft plan, and to ask that a particular school or other institution be named in the plan; and require the council to arrange a meeting between them and an officer of the council at which the draft plan can be discussed.
(SEND Regulations 2014 section 13) A child with an EHC plan must be educated in a mainstream school unless to do so is incompatible with: the wishes of the child’s parent(s)/ guardian(s); or the provision of efficient education for others, and there are no “reasonable steps” that could be taken to prevent this.
(Children and Families Act 2014 section 33, SEND Code paragraphs 9.88 to 9.94) When a child’s parent(s)/guardian(s) ask for a particular school or other institution to be named in their EHC plan, the council has a “conditional duty” to do so for most types of school/ institution i.e., all those listed in section 38(3) of the Children and Families Act 2014. This means the council must consult the requested school/ institution, and name it in the plan unless: it is unsuitable for the child’s age, ability, aptitude, or special educational needs; or the child’s attendance there would be incompatible with the provision of efficient education for others, or the efficient use of resources.
(Children and Families Act 2014 section 39, SEND Code paragraphs 9.78 to 9.80) When a council names a school or other institution in a child’s final EHC plan, the school/ institution has a duty to admit the child. (Children and Families Act 2014 section 43) 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). (SEND Regulations 2014 section 13, SEND Code paragraph 9.40) There is a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal against a decision not to assess, issue or amend an EHC plan or about the content of the final EHC plan. An appeal right is only engaged once a decision not to assess, issue or amend a plan has been made and sent to the parent(s)/guardian(s) or a final EHC plan has been issued. (SEND Regulations 2014 section 32) Alternative educational provision for a child out of school Councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils who are out of school because of exclusion, illness or for other reasons, if they would not receive suitable education without such arrangements. We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision. (Education Act 1996, section 19) The relevant statutory guidance ‘Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs, January 2013’ says Councils should provide education to those out of school as soon as it is clear the child will be away from school for 15 days or more, whether consecutive or cumulative. Councils should have regard to statutory guidance and only depart from it where there are good reasons.
Suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs they may have. (Education Act 1996, section 19(6)) The education provided by a council must be full-time unless the council determines that full-time education would not be in the child’s best interests for reasons of the child’s physical or mental health. (Education Act 1996, section 3A and 3AA) The law does not define full-time education but children with health needs should have provision which is equivalent to the education they would receive in school. If they receive one-to-one tuition, for example, the hours of face-to-face provision could be fewer as the provision is more concentrated. (2013 Statutory guidance, ‘Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs’) What happened Ms X’s child, D, was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder in September 2020 at the same time as they were beginning Year 5 at School A, a mainstream school.
In mid-November 2020, Ms X removed D from School A. She did not think School A could meet D’s needs and had concerns about their safety at the school. Ms X asked the Council to assess D’s special educational needs (SEN).
Eight weeks later, the Council told Ms X it would carry out an EHC needs assessment for D. It sought advice from professionals as described at paragraph 18, and from Service G, which had carried out diagnostic assessments of D. Service G provided reports of its September 2020 diagnostic assessments. It did not provide the professional statutory advice about D’s needs the Council had specifically asked for to inform its assessment. The Council also met with Ms X to discuss its assessment of D but did not keep records of this meeting. However, I am satisfied based on the correspondence that followed that the Council had agreed to seek further information from Service G.
Eight days after the meeting the Council’s Special Education Needs and Disability (SEND) Panel considered the advice gathered and decided D should have an EHC plan, naming a mainstream school. Ms X raised concerns that the Council had not told her about the SEND Panel before it met. She also thought the Panel had considered the wrong version of D’s EHC needs assessment.
Within a week of the Panel, the Council issued the first draft of D’s EHC plan. This was 19 weeks after Ms X first asked it to assess D, so one week before the 20-week statutory deadline by which it should have issued a final plan. School A considered the draft plan and told the Council it should not be named in the plan as it could not meet D’s needs.
Over the next month Ms X raised various concerns with the Council. She: was not satisfied the provision set out in the draft plan met D’s needs. The Council met with her, and an Educational Psychologist, to discuss this; expressed preferences for special schools she wanted the Council to name in the plan. The Council continued to consult mainstream schools and later consulted Ms X’s first special school preference, School B; asked the Council again to seek further information from Service G. The Council asked Service G for professional statutory advice; and told the Council School A was not providing alternative education for D while they were out of school. The Council sought to arrange this via an external provider.
In early May 2021, the Council received the advice from Service G. Ms X continued to ask the Council about the EHC plan and alternative education, so it directed her to its complaints procedure.
In mid-May 2021, the SEND Panel re-considered D’s case. It agreed funding for a special school type to be named in the plan, based on the new advice from Service G.
A month later, Ms X submitted her complaint. At a similar time: Ms X arranged for School B to assess D. It decided it could meet their needs but did not have a place available; the Council produced another EHC plan which it labelled as a final plan. It said it shared this with Ms X but did not provide us with a copy of this communication; and D began receiving the alternative education arranged by the Council.
The Council responded to the complaint at Stage 1 after two weeks. It accepted the latest version of D’s EHC plan was not suitable and arranged a meeting with Ms X to update it. Ms X asked to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 but the Council did not respond. She then attended the plan update meeting, after which the Council sent her a version of the plan with proposed changes.
A week later, the 2020/21 school year ended and the Council allocated a new officer to lead on the production of D’s plan, who: consulted seven further special schools about being named in the plan; requested an occupational therapy assessment of D to inform the plan; and arranged for alternative education for D to continue in the coming school year.
When the 2021/22 school year began, D was still out of school so did not start Year 6, but alternative education was in place. Ms X asked the Council to consult five special schools including School C.
In late September 2021, the Council updated Ms X about the schools consulted so far and sent her the latest version of the EHC plan. Ms X’s partner, Mr F, asked why this plan was labelled as final. The Council told Mr F this was an error as it was in fact a draft plan which Ms X had not yet had opportunity to comment on. At a similar time, School C responded to the Council to offer D a place.
Over the next month the Council: told School C the family accepted the school place; received the occupational therapy report it had requested, and a further update from Service G about its involvement with D; and sent a draft EHC plan to Ms X and School C, including the latest occupational therapy report and information from Service G.
Two weeks after the Council issued the draft plan, D started attending School C. A final plan was still not in place. Ms X had not responded with her comments on the draft plan, so the Council continued to chase her about this for another month. She responded in mid-December 2021 and asked for some changes, which School C agreed it could accommodate.
In early January 2022 Ms X told the Council D’s transport arrangements to School C were causing them distress and affecting their behaviour. She asked for funding for an escort to support D on their school journey.
In mid-January 2022, Ms X came to the Ombudsman. We told her we could not look at her complaint as she had not received a final response from the Council. Ms X asked the Council again to respond to her complaint at Stage 2. The same day the Council issued a final EHC plan for D, naming School C. This was 14 months after Ms X first asked it to assess D’s needs.
Three weeks later the Council issued its Stage 2 complaint response. When Ms X sought escalation to Stage 2, she said the Council’s delay in consulting special schools had meant none closer to D’s home had places left. She said travelling the further distance to School C caused D distress and affected their behaviour. The Council decided to consider this as a separate complaint. It issued its final response to this over six weeks after its earlier Stage 2 response. Ms X then came back to the Ombudsman.
After Ms X came to us, D continued to attend School C. Mr Y said Ms X was satisfied with the final EHC plan, and felt D was doing well at School C. She did not plan to appeal the content of the plan including the named school. However, there were still issues with D’s transport to School C.
My findings
The Ombudsman’s jurisdiction Ms X first complained to us in January 2022 so we would normally only be able to investigate events from January 2021 onwards. I decided delays by the Council in finalising D’s EHC plan, and considering Ms X’s complaint, were good reason to go back to November 2020, when Ms X asked the Council to assess D’s needs.
Faults in the EHC assessment and planning process Ms X raised various concerns about the content of D’s EHC plan during the drafting process. The Council accepted in its Stage 1 complaint response that the drafts up to July 2021 had not been suitable. The Ombudsman cannot look at the content of draft plans and make a judgment about whether these were suitable, that is not our role. There would also be no benefit to considering this now, as Ms X was satisfied with the final plan once this was issued. The drafting process is for councils to consider all relevant information, including parent views, and make changes to ensure the final plan is suitable. We can look at whether the Council carried out the drafting process properly, without delay, and considered everything it should have.
As described at paragraph 24, Ms X could have appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the content of D’s EHC plan, including the named school, but only after the Council issued a final plan. The Council accepted it failed to meet statutory timescales. It said it issued the final EHC plan in June 2021. My view is it in fact did not issue a final plan until January 2022. Although the Council holds copies of plans labelled as final dated June 2021 and July 2021, I do not consider these to be valid final plans because: the Council only shared the June 2021 plan with Ms X after it met with her in mid-July following her Stage 1 complaint. This was in the context of proposing changes to the plan. I therefore consider this was a working draft of the plan, not a final plan, even if it was labelled as final. There is no evidence the Council formally shared this with Ms X as a final plan or told her she could appeal this to the SEND Tribunal; the first time the Council shared the July 2021 “amended final” plan with Ms X was in September 2021. When Mr F queried the status of this as a final plan, the Council accepted it had wrongly labelled it as final; and as I explain later in this decision statement, I am not satisfied the Council kept accurate or properly organised records of the various versions of D’s EHC plan, or who it had shared these with.
Therefore, I am satisfied the Council took 62 weeks to issue a final plan after Ms X asked it to assess D, instead of the required 20 weeks. This was fault. There were various faults by the Council which contributed to this delay, which I will describe below.
As described at paragraph 17, councils must decide whether they agree to an assessment within six weeks of the request. In this case the Council took eight weeks to do so, which was fault.
The Council received information from Service G in January 2021, but this was not the professional statutory advice about D’s needs it had asked for. The Council should have recognised it had the wrong information from Service G and clarified its request but did not do so. This meant the March 2021 SEND Panel did not have sight of advice from Service G when it decided it was appropriate for a mainstream school to be named in D’s plan. Ms X had also told the Council it needed further information from Service G when it met with her in March 2021. It did not properly record or follow up on the actions from this meeting, which was fault. The SEND Panel also wrongly considered a previous version of D’s Summary of Assessment, so did not have sight of all information provided by Ms X and an Educational Psychologist. There was fault in how the Panel made its decision. Its decision later changed once it had sight of the updated information from Service G.
The Council requested the further information from Service G three weeks after the SEND Panel, but only because Ms X chased this. At this point the 20-week deadline to finalise the plan had already passed. Had the Council requested the correct advice earlier, and Service G failed to respond within the required 6-week deadline, it could have considered whether it should privately commission the advice from elsewhere. Either way, if necessary to meet statutory timescales the Council should have issued a final plan without the advice. This would have triggered Ms X’s right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the content of the plan if she disagreed. I accept that when the Council was waiting for the correct advice from Service G, it offered to finalise the plan without it and Ms X said she did not want it to. Councils should work with parents and accommodate reasonable requests for changes where possible. However, the Council had a statutory duty to D, not to Ms X, to finalise the EHC plan, so provision could be put in place for D, and a Tribunal appeal lodged if necessary. Its failure to do so was fault.
The information about D’s needs considered at the March 2021 SEND Panel also recorded that an occupational therapy assessment would be beneficial for D. However, the Council did not request this until late July 2021, after Ms X complained and a new Council officer was allocated to lead on the case.
The Council said it did not consult special schools to be named in the plan when Ms X first asked it to because the SEND Panel had decided a mainstream setting would be appropriate. As described at paragraph 20, councils are not required to name a mainstream school in an EHC plan where this is against the wishes of the child’s parent. As described at paragraph 21, the Council had a duty to name a school of Ms X’s preference in the plan and could only refuse to do so where specific conditions were met. My view is the Council should have properly considered Ms X’s requests for it to consult with special schools earlier. It failed to recognise it had a duty to consider Ms X’s preference, and that the Panel’s decision did not prevent it from doing so. This was fault.
After School C agreed a start date, the Council issued a further draft plan and provided Ms X with the required 15 days to comment. When she did not respond, the Council continued to chase this, allowing her a further month to request changes. Once School C agreed to the changes, the Council took a further month to issue a final plan. Given the significant delays there had already been, the Council should have acted more quickly to finalise the plan at this stage.
The various faults described above, and the delay in issuing a final plan, caused Ms X distress and confusion, for which the Council should provide a remedy. Ms X said the delays cost D a place in a special school closer to home. I cannot say whether this is the case, to do so would be speculation. However, my view is had these faults not occurred, the Council could have issued a final plan naming School C sooner. There also remains uncertainty about whether D could have got a place in a nearer suitable school without the delays. The Council should act to remedy this injustice.
As described at paragraph 22, any school the Council named in D’s final EHC plan would have had a duty to admit D. Mr Y said the Council did not properly consider whether it should use its powers to overrule School B’s decision that it could not provide a placement for D. The Council said it considered this but did not think it appropriate in this case as it was aware School B was enrolled well above its capacity. The Council did not provide evidence it recorded its consideration about this at the time. However, I am satisfied that based on the information provided by School B, the Council had good reason to decide it should not name it in D’s plan.
Alternative education while D was out of school Paragraphs 25 to 29 set out the steps a council must take when a child is out of school for 15 days or more for any reason. D was out of school from November 2020 to November 2021.
The Council was aware D was out of school from, at the latest, early December 2020. However, there is no evidence it considered its duties to arrange suitable alternative education before April 2021, when Ms X specifically asked it to. Once the Council decided it should arrange alternative education for D, it then took over two months to put this in place. The Council’s failure to properly consider its duties for nearly five months, and then the two-month delay once it decided to arrange alternative education, was fault.
The Council did not keep records of any consideration it gave about whether the type and number of hours of the alternative education it arranged was suitable for D, as defined at paragraph 27. I think the Council’s failure to keep proper records about its consideration of this was fault. However, my view is this fault did not cause D any injustice. Based on the evidence I am satisfied that once the alternative education began at the end of June 2021, the Council properly assured itself that D was accessing this and it was suitable.
The Council’s failure to consider its duties meant D missed a significant period of education My view is this period out of school caused distress to D. The Council should act to remedy the injustice caused for the period where it was aware D was out of school but did not properly consider its duties, from December 2020 to June 2021.
Communication with Ms X and record keeping In responding to Ms X’s complaint, the Council accepted the “quality and content of [its] communications [with Ms X] could have been more comprehensive”. It recognised specific faults in how it communicated with Ms X, which I agree are faults: During the March 2021 meeting with Ms X, the Council officer left early because they had mistakenly arranged another meeting at the same time.
The Council did not properly inform Ms X that D’s case was to be considered at a SEND Panel in either March or May 2021. It also did not provide her with clear information about the documents considered and the Panel outcomes.
Although it said this was not intended, the Council accepted the tone of an email from one of its officers could be read to suggest Ms X was to blame for delays.
I identified further faults in the Council’s communications: The Council did not keep proper records of its meetings with Ms X and any agreed actions so cannot say if it properly followed up on these.
After the March 2021 SEND Panel, Ms X asked the Council for a copy of the version of D’s Summary of Assessment which it considered. In response, two separate Council officers sent Ms X different versions of the document, causing her further confusion. As described at paragraph 54, the Panel considered the wrong version.
There is not enough evidence the Council shared all the versions of D’s EHC plan with Ms X. As described at paragraph 51, the Council accepted that at one stage it wrongly labelled a plan as final when in fact Ms X had not had opportunity to comment.
The Council should act to remedy the distress and confusion caused to Ms X by its poor record keeping and failure to communicate properly.
Mr Y said the Council did not provide Ms X with enough information about the alternative education it arranged for D. The Council sent Ms X a copy of the proposal for this in May 2021, which included the proposed number of hours and outcomes to be achieved for D. The Council then asked the external provider to contact Ms X directly to arrange the provision, which it did, and introductory sessions took place with Ms X and D. The Council was at fault in how long it took to arrange alternative education. However, I am satisfied that once it decided to arrange this, Ms X was provided with enough information and had opportunity to ask questions had she wished to do so.
Complaint handling Mr Y said Ms X made several complaints to the Council before it accepted this via its complaints procedure in June 2021. Ms X first raised concerns with the relevant service manager in mid-March 2021. The service tried for two months to resolve the concerns with Ms X directly before it directed her to the complaints procedure. Ms X then submitted her complaint a month later. I do not consider the Council to be at fault because it first tried to resolve Ms X’s concerns within the relevant service area. Ms X was raising her concerns to seek changes to D's EHC plan, so I do not think the Council was at fault because it, at first, treated this as part of the drafting process.
The Council’s Stage 1 response to Ms X’s complaint told her to contact the general complaints team inbox to escalate the complaint. However, it also said the service manager who responded would be Ms X’s main point of contact about D’s case until they were to leave the Council’s employment at the end of the month. Ms X contacted this staff member directly, well before they left the Council, asking to escalate the complaint. Although I accept Ms X did not follow the process the Council asked her to, I understand why she contacted the officer directly as she was told they would be her main point of contact. The Council should have a process in place to ensure that when staff members are absent or leave its employment, emails are responded to in good time by other staff. My view is the fact Ms X never received a response to her request to escalate the complaint, was fault, which caused her distress. The Council should act to remedy this injustice.
As described at paragraph 47, once the Council considered Ms X’s complaint at Stage 2, it decided to consider part of it as a separate complaint. My view is the issues considered separately were inextricably linked to the substantive issues of Ms X’s complaint. Therefore, I think the Council’s failure to consider Ms X’s concerns as one complaint was fault. This compounded the delays she had already experienced and delayed her in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman. The Council should act to remedy this injustice.
Transport to School C In its latest complaint response, the Council said it would work with Ms X to attempt to support D’s travel needs to School C. In response to our enquiries, the Council said it was of the view there were no outstanding issues with D’s school transport, based on information from its transport team and School C. There is evidence Ms X asked the Council for funding for an escort to help D with their school journey in early January 2022. However, I am not satisfied the Council properly considered or responded to this request at the time, or when issuing its final complaint response. My view is this is fault, for which the Council should provide a remedy.
Agreed action
As set out in our Guidance on Remedies, where we find fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we usually recommend a payment of between £200 and £600 a month to recognise the impact of that loss. In this case I am satisfied the period for which the Council was aware D was out of school was mid-December 2020 until mid-November 2021. From July 2021 onwards, I am satisfied the Council put alternative education in place for D and assured itself this was suitable. I consider a remedy of £300 for each month of missed education from December 2020 to June 2021 to be appropriate, based on the following considerations: during this period D was in year 5 of primary school. As set out in our Guidance on Remedies, we would not usually consider this to be a significant period in a child’s school career, as we would for say, the first year of compulsory education; there is no evidence D was provided any education at all from December 2020 to June 2021; and during their time out of school D did not have a final EHC plan in place and so I cannot say what specific SEN support they may have missed.
Within one month of my final decision, the Council will: apologise to D and their family for the faults identified; pay the family a total of £2,400 comprising of: £1,500 to recognise the 5 months of education (accounting for school holidays) D missed while they were out of school, from the point the Council was aware in December 2020, until they returned to school in November 2021. This is intended for D’s future educational benefit; £500 to recognise the avoidable distress caused to Ms X; £100 to recognise the avoidable distress caused to D; and £300 to recognise the unnecessary time and trouble spent by Ms X in bringing the complaint.
review D’s school transport arrangements, seek and properly consider Ms X’s views about this, and respond to any request for changes.
Within three months of my final decision, the Council will: review its procedures for EHC assessments and plans, and issue reminders to relevant staff to ensure it: issues its decision whether to agree to an EHC needs assessment within the 6-week statutory timescale; approaches and consults relevant professionals in good time where it needs information from an external service; shares all draft and final EHC plan versions with the young person or their parent(s)/guardian(s) and allows them the opportunity to comment in line with statutory requirements; properly considers requests from the young person or their parent(s)/guardian(s) to consult and name a school or other institution where they have expressed a preference for this; issues a final EHC plan within the 20-week statutory timescale after an EHC assessment is requested; keeps the young person or their parent(s)/ guardian(s) updated, responds to their queries, and follows up on any agreed actions in good time; and keeps accurate and properly organised records of each case, including a clear dated record of each EHC plan version and who it has been shared with.
review relevant procedures and issue reminders to relevant staff to ensure that when it is aware a child is out of school for any reason, it: meets its duties under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to secure them suitable alternative education; and properly records its consideration of the suitability of that alternative education, including whether the proposed type of provision and number of hours is suitable for the child’s age, ability, aptitude, and SEN.
review its SEND service’s process for responding to emails from young people and/or their parent(s)/guardian(s), to ensure that when staff members are absent or leave the Council’s employment, emails are responded to in good time by other appropriate staff.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council which caused D to miss education. The fault also caused avoidable distress for D, and avoidable distress, time, and trouble for Ms X. The Council agreed to our recommendations to remedy this injustice, review relevant procedures, and issue reminders to its staff.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman