The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: There was fault by the Council. The Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns, but it did not ensure she was involved in the development of her son’s targets. There were also some discrepancies between the Education Health and Care Plan, and the education her son received. This caused Mrs X worry and frustration, and the Council will apologise to Mrs X for the impact on her.
The complaint
The Council failed to make sure that the Mrs X’s adult son, Mr K, received educational provision in line with his Education Health and Care Plan. Mrs X says that the Council and the education provider failed to work with his parents as set out in the Plan, and failed to deliver sufficient education for him.
Mrs X says that as a result of these failings, her son has not progressed in line with his EHC Plan.
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 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) 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)
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments 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
The law and guidance EHC Plans and provision 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.
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 ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135) 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.
The EHC Plan review process The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. Following the review meeting the council must issue a decision to either amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal.
Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.
If the child’s parents or the young person disagrees with the decision to cease the EHC Plan, the council must continue to maintain the EHC Plan until the time has passed for bringing an appeal, or when an appeal has been registered, until it is concluded.
What happened This is a summary of the key events and is not a detailed account of everything that has happened. I have investigated the Council’s actions from October 2024 to October 2025, when Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman.
Mrs X’s son, Mr K, is an adult with special educational needs and he has an EHC Plan. Mrs X had educated him at home because his school placements broke down. Mrs X had seen her son make progress .
Mr K’s EHC Plan, says that he will not be educated at school and from October 2024, his education was provided by a tutoring service in his home. The Plan set out that he would receive support from two tutors for 25 hours per week. According to the Plan, Mr K’s education would include daily use of a computer to record information, working on his understanding of time, money and using a calculator. The EHC Plan also said that Mr K’s learning targets would be developed between the tutoring service and Mrs X.
The tutoring service met with Mrs X and Mr K before it started to work with him. It also sent the Council weekly reports describing the tasks Mr K was doing and how he was managing these. The Council shared the reports with Mrs X.
Mrs X asked the Council for Mr K’s learning targets and to meet with the Council and the tutoring service to discuss his progress. The Council said that they could all meet formally at Mr K’s annual review of his EHC Plan because this would happen in a few months’ time.
Mrs X told the Council that the tutors were not delivering all the educational provision under the Plan because there were not supporting Mr K to use a computer and calculator, nor working on his understanding of time.
The Council held an annual review meeting of the Plan on 31 March 2025 and agreed that an Educational Psychologist would reassess how to meet Mr K’s needs.
The tutoring service did not go to the meeting but sent information. The Council considered this, and a new Educational Psychologist’s report. The report noted Mrs X’s concerns that there were no clear targets and Mr K was not progressing. The Psychologist concluded that Mr K was receiving bespoke tuition and targeted support. Their report said that Mr K was taking small, meaningful steps forward but that he had difficulty retaining the learning. The Psychologist recommended that Mr K’s learning be more closely linked to transferable skills that would help him live independently.
The Council issued a draft EHC Plan on 7 August. Mrs X asked the Council to issue the final Plan because she considered the draft Plan was not sufficient. The Council did this on 11 August and Mrs X appealed to the tribunal about the contents of the Plan.
Mrs X complained to the Council that her son had not received the provision set out in his EHC Plan and so was not progressing as expected. She said he was reading the same book as last year, for example. Mrs X asked the Council for details of his time table, the activities Mr K is completing, and his targets. She also said that she did not believe the tutors were suitably qualified to meet her son’s needs.
The Council said that the education provider has confirmed it can deliver the full provision set out in the Plan, and the timetable and targets were to continue as the year before. The Council said that the tutors were suitably qualified to work with Mr K.
Mrs X asked the Council to consider her complaint at stage two of its process. She said there was no evidence that Mr K had the provision set out in his Plan. She said the education provider had not shared any assessments or targets for a year, and did not attend the annual review.
The Council said that it had dealt with these issues sufficiently at stage one. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman. The Council met with Mrs X to discuss her concerns.
Was there fault by the Council causing Mr K and Mrs X injustice?
Overall, Mr K’s educational provision was broadly in line with his EHC Plan. However, there were some missing elements and Mrs X raised these with the Council early on.
The Council dealt with Mrs X’s concerns via the annual review process. It also followed up her concerns with the tutoring service, and it met with Mrs X, Mr K’s social care coordinator, and health professionals supporting him, so that it could ensure that all aspects of his social care and educational provision were working together. The Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns in good time and clearly tried to resolve these.
I have reviewed the regular reports from the tutoring service. These show that Mr K’s educational provision was broadly in line with his EHC Plan. However, some aspects were missing, such as using the computer to record information. The new 2025 Plan changed the provision to learning that would support Mr K’s independent living. However, the activities the tutoring service was delivering did not change.
Both the Plan covering October 2024 to August 2025, and the Plan from August 2025 onwards say that the tutors will develop targets in collaboration with Mrs X. This is not part of the section F educational provision in the Plan and so it was not a strict legal requirement for the Council to make sure this happened. However, it is good administrative practice to deliver the whole Plan and a parent should be able to rely on that. This means there was fault by the Council as it did not make sure the targets were developed with Mrs X, and this was a central part of her concerns.
The Council held the annual review meeting for Mr K’s EHC Plan on 31 March 2025 and so it should have issued the final within 12 weeks, by 23 June. Instead the Council issued the final EHC Plan on 11 August, which was seven weeks late. I acknowledge that the Council had to wait for an Educational Psychologist to reassess Mr K, and did not receive their report until 19 June. However, the delay is fault. Mrs X did not agree with the Plan, and the delay meant she had to wait longer to lodge her appeal against this. However, I do note that Mr K continued to receive educational provision in the meantime.
Mr K is very vulnerable and cannot advocate for himself, and so it falls to Mrs X to make sure he is receiving what he is entitled to. It is understandable that she needs to be involved in his education and social care. The educational provision was not exactly according to the Plans, and Mrs X was not involved in setting targets. We cannot say whether this hampered Mr K’s progress, but it is likely to have caused Mrs X worry and frustration.
Action
Within one month of the date of this decision, the Council will apologise to Mrs X for the worry and frustration its shortcomings caused her. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Decision I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman