The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education for her child, who could not attend school since 2021. Ms X also complained the Council delayed in producing the final Education Health and Care Plan for her child. We found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for Ms X’s child for repeat periods covering two years. We also found fault with the Council delaying in producing the Final Education Health and Care plan for 70 weeks outside the statutory timescales. The Council agreed to apologise to Ms X and pay her £750 as a symbolic payment for her distress and frustration caused by the Council’s delay. The Council also agreed to pay Ms X £6,090 for her child’s lost educational provision and reimburse her £1,176 for educational provision she paid for.
The complaint
Ms X complained the Council prevented her child, who I shall refer to as Y, from accessing suitable education since 29 August 2021.
Ms X says the Council did this by delaying finalisation of Y’s Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and failing to offer any suitable educational provision for Y, who could not attend school.
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 consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), 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(i), as amended) Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
What I have and have not investigated I have investigated Ms X’s complaint from 29 August 2021 to 8 February 2024.
I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint before 29 August 2021 since this is the date Ms X made her application for an EHC assessment of Y. Since Y only became of compulsory school age on 31 August 2021, Y was not entitled to any alternative provision of education before this date.
I have not investigated Ms X’s complaint after 8 February 2024 because this is the date the Council provided its enquiry response to the Ombudsman. The Council must have opportunity to explain its position and address a complaint before the Ombudsman makes a finding.
We would normally consider the Council’s final complaint response as the end date of an investigation. However, we can exercise discretion to investigate matters after this date if an injustice is continuing. In this instance, we have investigated the complaint up to 8 February 2024 as the final point in which the Council has had opportunity to provide its position. Any issues after 8 February 2024 would be the subject of a new complaint.
How I considered this complaint
I have considered all the information Ms X provided. I have also asked the Council questions and requested information, and in turn have considered the Council’s response.
Both Ms X and the Council had opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made my final decision.
What I found
EHC Plans Rules and regulations A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. An EHC Plan describes the child’s special educational needs and the provision required to meet them.
The procedure for assessing a child’s special educational needs and issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan is set out in legislation and Government guidance.
The Council must respond to all requests for an EHC Plan. It must decide whether an assessment is needed within six weeks of receiving the request. The whole process from the point of request to the Council issuing the final EHC Plan must take no more than 20 weeks.
If the Council declines to issue an EHC Plan, a person can appeal to the SEND tribunal. If the Council notifies the tribunal it will not oppose the appeal before the tribunal submits a response, the appeal is to be treated as if it was determined in favour of the appellant. The Council must issue a draft EHC Plan within 5 weeks and a Final EHC Plan within 11 weeks of the date the Council notified the tribunal it will not oppose the appeal.
If the Council decides to issue a plan it must first issue a draft for the parents or young person to consider. The Council does not have to provide exactly what the parents request but it should be able to explain why the EHC Plan meets the needs of the child.
Once the Council completes the EHC Plan it has a legal duty to deliver the educational and social care provision set out in the plan. The local health care provider will have the duty to deliver the health care provision.
The Ombudsman can look at any delay in the assessment and creation of an EHC Plan as well as any failure by the Council to deliver the provision within an EHC Plan.
What happened On 29 August 2021, Ms X requested an assessment from the Council of Y for an EHC Plan.
The Council declined to assess Y for an EHC Plan on 7 October 2021 and told Ms X of this on 11 October 2021. The Council said the evidence did not suggest Y would need support at a level Y’s school would be unable to provide.
Ms X appealed the Council’s decision not to assess Y. The Council overturned its decision at the panel and confirmed with Ms X on 26 October 2021 it would assess Y for an EHC Plan.
The Council declined to issue an EHC Plan for Y on 13 January 2022 and wrote to Ms X to explain its decision. The Council said it considered Y could access a full-curriculum of education at a mainstream school without extra support.
Ms X appealed the Council’s decision to the SEND tribunal on 11 March 2022.
On 15 July 2022, the Council conceded the appeal to the SEND tribunal and agreed to issue an EHC Plan for Y.
The Council issued the first draft EHC Plan for Y on 29 September 2022. Ms X provided comments on this draft EHC Plan.
On 7 July 2023, the Council issued the second draft EHC Plan for Y. Ms X again provided comments on this draft EHC Plan.
The Council produced the third draft EHC Plan on 16 October 2023 followed by the fourth draft EHC Plan on 4 December 2023.
The Council produced the Final EHC Plan for Y on 16 February 2024 Analysis The Council had six weeks from 29 August 2021 to decide if it should assess Y for an EHC Plan. This meant the Council had until 12 October 2021 to tell Ms X of its decision. The Council decided not to assess Y by 11 October 2021 and told Ms X of its decision.
The Council was entitled to decide not to assess Y. This is a merits decision and not one the Ombudsman can question. The Council also decided not to assess Y within the statutory timescales. I do not find fault with the Council.
Following Ms X’s appeal, the Council agreed to assess Y for an EHC Plan on 26 October 2021. The Council still had 20 weeks the assess Y and either produce the Final EHC Plan or decline to issue the plan excluding the time period from 11 October 2021 to 26 October 2021. This meant the Council had until 21 January 2022 to either issue the Final EHC Plan for Y or decline to issue an EHC Plan following assessment.
The Council declined to issue an EHC Plan for Y on 13 January 2022. Again, this is a merits decision and not one the Ombudsman can question. The Council also decided not to issue an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales. I do not find fault with the Council.
From the date the Council conceded the appeal to the tribunal, it needed to issue the draft EHC Plan within five weeks and the final EHC Plan within eleven weeks. The Council issued the first draft EHC Plan ten weeks after the date it conceded the appeal. This was five weeks outside the statutory timescales and was fault.
The eleven-week deadline for production of the final EHC Plan was 3 October 2022. This means the Council has delayed for over one year and four months outside the statutory timescales for production of the final EHC Plan. During this time, the Council produced four draft EHC Plans which Ms X provided comments on. While this helps to explain the delay, the delay was still fault.
This fault caused Ms X avoidable frustration and stress through the delays in production of the Final EHC Plan. Given the Council had eleven weeks to produce the final EHC Plan and the Council has not produced it in slightly over 70 weeks, this is a prolonged delay. This will have exacerbated Ms X’s frustration and stress.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies says we will normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500. However, we can recommend higher payments where distress has been especially prolonged. The excessive delay by the Council in this matter is a prolonged delay and justifies an award above our normal scale. We recommend the Council provides Ms X with an award of £750 as a symbolic payment for her distress and frustration.
I have addressed the impact of these delays to Y’s access to education within paragraphs 99 to 101.
Alternative Provision of education for children Rules and regulations Councils must “make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them”. (Education Act 1996, section 19(1)) 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 Council must consider the individual circumstances of each particular child and be able to demonstrate how it made its decision.
The education provided by a council must be full-time unless a 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) We have issued guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to provide education for children who, for whatever reason, do not attend school full-time. (Out of school… out of mind? How councils can do more to give children out of school a good education, published in 2016) We made six recommendations. Councils should: consider the individual circumstances of each case and be aware that a council may need to act whatever the reason for absence (with the exception of minor issues that schools deal with on a day-to-day basis) – even when a child is on a school roll; consult all the professionals involved in a child's education and welfare, taking account of the evidence in coming to decisions; consider enforcing attendance where a child has a suitable school place available, and where there is no medical or other reason that prevents them attending; keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing it if a child's capacity to learn increases; adopt a strategic and planned approach to reintegrating children into mainstream education where they are able to do so; and put whatever action is chosen into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.
Our focus report states local authorities should not assume that schools shoulder the entire responsibility for a child’s education.
Statutory guidance (Children missing education statutory guidance for local authorities) sets out that the “school should agree with their local authority, the intervals at which they will inform local authorities of the details of pupils who fail to attend school regularly, or have missed ten school days or more without permission.” This applies to all schools, including academies.
Government guidance on a council’s section 19 duties recommends councils arrange education for a child from the sixth day of absence when it is clear a child would be away from school for 15 days or more.
Our role is to check councils carry out their duties properly and provide suitable education for children who would not otherwise receive it. We do not have the power to consider the actions of schools.
What happened Y started to attend primary school in September 2021. Y started to struggle with attendance in October 2021 before stopping attendance entirely from 19 November 2021.
Ms X contacted the Council on 23 November 2021 to advise them that Y was in “full school refusal”. Ms X asked the Council to contact her to discuss how to address this issue. The Council did not respond to Ms X’s contact.
On 13 January 2022, the Council held a multi-agency meeting following contact from Ms X’s school about Y’s absence. Y’s school said it believed Y could attend school and the Educational Psychologist recommended a “graded exposure” approach to bring Y back into school with a review on 27 January 2022. The Council also wrote to Ms X on 13 January 2022 to confirm its decision that following an assessment of Y’s needs. it considered Y could access a full-curriculum of education at a mainstream school.
Y did not start to attend school again through the “graded exposure” approach and Ms X started to fund MindJam sessions for Y in March 2022.
Following Ms X’s appeal to the tribunal and ongoing discussions with the Council, the Council reconsidered Y’s access to education and decided Y was medically unfit to attend school. The Council decided to put in place six-months of medical tutoring on 15 June 2022 following Ms X’s request for this in December 2021. The tutor started to provide tutoring to Y from 17 June 2022.
On 5 July 2022, Ms X asked the Council for Education Otherwise Than At School and pointed to the Council’s Section 19 duty. The Council said it would pass Ms X’s request to panel for consideration.
On 29 September 2022, the Council’s panel rejected Ms X’s request for Education Otherwise Than At School and said it would name Y’s primary school on his EHC Plan. Ms X disputed the Council’s position because Y had been unable to attend school for nearly a full year.
Y started work with the Intensive Behaviour Support Service (The Service) on 21 November 2022. The Service aimed to put in place help to support Y to express his emotions in a less aggressive manner.
On 29 November 2022, Y had the last session with the medical tutor.
On 8 December 2022, the Council held a review meeting of Y’s access to education. Ms X said the relationship between Y and the tutor had now broken down and Y will not allow this to be repaired. Ms X said a new tutor would be needed but this is not a priority. The school said it cannot engage Y in education but Ms X does not want to home educate. The Council said it would place tuition on hold to allow other professionals time to work with Y subject to a further review on 12 January 2023.
On 25 February 2023, Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council about the delays in producing Y’s EHC Plan and his lack of education.
On 6 March 2023, the Council started to fund Y’s MindJam sessions for one hour each week.
The Council provided its Stage 1 complaint response on 10 March 2023. The Council said: Y’s school tried to work with Ms X to re-engage Y into school following his stop in attendance in November 2021.
In June 2022 the Council considered Y was medically unfit to attend school and assigned a medical tutor.
It had started to fund MindJam sessions for Y.
Y was currently receiving input from The Service until the end of March 2023.
On 1 May 2023, the Council increased Y’s MindJam sessions to two hours each week.
The Service provided its report to the Council in May 2023. The Service said it did not feel Y could cope with a classroom structure and that Y could not access mainstream education.
Ms X provided responses to the Council’s Stage 1 complaint response in May and June 2023 advising Y was receiving well short of a proper education.
On 23 June 2023, Ms X started to provide a monthly science lesson subscription for Y.
On 7 July 2023, the Council produced the second draft EHC Plan for Y. Within this draft EHC Plan the Council confirmed that Y had been assessed as unable to attend school. The Council outlined the educational provision Y should receive. This included: 2 hours of MindJam sessions each week.
1 day, 6 hours, at Stomping Ground Therapeutic school each week.
A monthly Science lesson subscription.
The Council issued its Stage 2 complaint response on 8 August 2023. The Council said it is still working to agree and put in place a suitable package of education for Y.
On 24 August 2023, Ms sought consideration of her complaint at Stage 3. Ms X reiterated her concerns about the lack of education in place for Y.
On 14 September 2023, Y started to attend 2.5 hours each week session at Stomping Ground Therapeutic school.
The Council sent its Stage 3 complaint response to Ms X on 13 October 2023. The Council said: It initially considered Y could access education in school with support but then decided Y could not attend school and needed education outside of the school setting.
It had already put in place two hours of MindJam sessions each week, a lesson subscription and one day at Stomping Grounds Therapeutic school each week for Y.
It was looking to provide up to 14 hours of tutoring for Y through Nudge.
It had previously committed to six-months of medical tutoring for Y but the relationship between Y and the tutor broke down.
It would pay Ms X £500 for the distress experienced and £200 for the MindJam sessions she paid for from October 2022 to March 2023.
The Council started to fud the monthly science subscription for Y and provided a rebate for the cost Ms X incurred funding this in the interim.
On 16 October 2023, the Council produced the third draft EHC Plan for Y. Within this draft EHC Plan the Council again confirmed that Y had been assessed as unable to attend school. The Council outlined the educational provision Y should receive. This included: 2 hours of MindJam sessions each week.
1 day, 6 hours, at Stomping Ground Therapeutic school each week.
A monthly Science lesson subscription.
Up to 14 hours each of education programme.
Within the Council’s fourth draft EHC Plan it maintained the same provision as the third draft EHC Plan but with an up to 12 hours instead of up to 14 hours education programme.
The Council stopped providing Stomping Grounds sessions on 30 November 2023 following a request from Ms X.
On 23 January 2024, the Council started to provide education through Nudge across four half-days each week with the view to increasing this provision in line with Y’s ability to cope.
Analysis – September 2021 to 12 January 2022 It is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate the actions of a school.
From September 2021 to 13 January 2022, Y’s school was working with Ms X to try to engage Y in mainstream education. I would not find fault with the actions of the Council before Ms X contacted it on 23 November 2022 to advise Y was not attending school. However, the Council failed to take any action to address Y’s absence from school after this date.
The law is clear that where a school does not make appropriate arrangements for a child who is missing education through illness or ‘otherwise’, the Council must intervene and make such arrangements itself. The duty arises after a child has missed fifteen days of education either consecutively or cumulatively.
Y’s fifteenth day of absence was 9 December 2021. The Council’s failure to take action meant that Y missed out on 2 and a half weeks of education from 10 December 2021 until 12 January 2022 through the fault of the Council.
Analysis – 13 January 2022 to 14 June 2022 Following the Council’s EHC needs assessment of Y, it would have been clear to the Council Y was not accessing education regardless of its failure to act following Ms X’s contact in November 2021.
The Council was aware on 13 January 2022 that Y was not accessing education and had been absent for fifteen days. While the Council needed to consider its Section 19 duty, it did not have an obligation to provide education out of school for Y.
Part of the Council’s Section 19 duty is to consider each individual child’s needs and decide if the child could access school in mainstream education. The Council has shown in its letter of 13 January 2022 to Ms X that it considered Y could access mainstream education. The Council made this decision after completing an EHC needs assessment of Y. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make and I do not find fault.
While I do not find fault with the Council’s decision Y could access education in mainstream school, this does not remove its entire Section 19 duty. Given the Council’s decision, it should either have considered enforcing Y’s attendance at school or adopted a strategic and planned approach to reintegrate Y into mainstream education.
The Council has shown it decided to adopt a “graded exposure” approach to bring Y back into school with this to be reviewed on 27 January 2022. I do not find fault with the Council’s decision in this instance as this was an approach the Council was entitled to take.
The Council has failed to keep this “graded exposure” approach under review and this approach was entirely unsuccessful with Y failing to return to school at any point. This was fault, Because of this, the Council took no action to support or provide education for Y from 27 January 2022 until 17 June 2022.
Analysis – 15 June 2022 to 29 November 2022 When the Council assessed Y as being medically unfit to attend school, it engaged its Section 19 duty to provide education for Y outside the school setting. This duty began on the latest of the sixth day following its decision Y was medically unfit to attend school.
Since the Council put in place medical tutoring for Y from 17 June 2022, the Council met its Section 19 duty to provide education within this six-day window.
While the Council put in place some education, it was only providing one hour of tutoring each week alongside the one hour of MindJam that Ms X had arranged. The Council decided this provision was suitable for Y’s needs because of the need to slowly engage Y with support.
The Council has provided evidence of the full feedback from the medical tutor which shows that Y struggled to engage with the medical tutor and repeatedly ended sessions with the medical tutor. Y’s responses to the medical tutor throughout the entire period of provision shows a general trend of refusal to engage in education.
Since Y was not able to cope with the level of tuition on offer, which was monitored by the Council, this justifies the Council’s decision not to provide any additional tuition.
The Council kept the provision under review and made a suitable decision about this, I cannot find fault.
Analysis – 30 November 2022 to 12 January 2023 The Council decided on 29 September 2022 that Y could access his education in school. The Council made this decision at a panel meeting and supported this when it produced the draft EHC Plan dated 29 September 2022. The draft EHC Plan said that Y would access his education in a mainstream primary school. This is again a decision the Council was entitled to make and I cannot question this decision.
Y also continued to receive medical tutoring until 29 November 2022. After 29 November 2022, the only access to education Y had was the MindJam sessions arranged by Ms X.
The Council decided with Ms X and the school in December 2022 to temporarily cease tuition for Y while it allowed other professionals to work with Y. This pause was to last only until 12 January 2023. The Council has made a well-reasoned decision at this time and one I cannot find fault with. The Council has considered its duty to provide education and made a decision that it believed was in the best interest of Y to enable Y to engage in future education. I do not find fault with the Council.
Analysis – 13 January 2023 to 5 March 2023 The Council set itself a duty to review Y’s education on 12 January 2023 following a short break in this education.
Since the Council decided in September 2022, Y could access his education in primary school, the Council again had a duty to either enforce Y’s attendance at school or adopt a strategic and planned approach to reintegrate Y into mainstream education. If the Council did not consider either of these approaches suitable it should have reconsidered provision of tutoring for Y from 12 January 2023.
The Council took none of these actions resulting in Y not getting suitable access to education. This was fault.
Analysis – 6 March 2023 to 31 May 2023 The Council advised it does not have notes about when it considered Y could not access education in school or what constituted a suitable education for Y. In the absence of other evidence, I would consider the 6 March 2023 the point at which the Council decided Y should access education outside of school.
This is because the Council started to fund Y’s MindJam sessions from this date. In this circumstance, agreeing to fund the MindJam sessions is an indication from the Council it considered Y should be receiving education outside of school and that Y could not attend school.
While the Council began to fund the MindJam sessions, Y was receiving less education that he was when the Council last engaged its Section 19 duty to provide education outside of school for Y.
The Council cannot evidence why it considered this provision was suitable for Y’s needs. One hour of provision is significantly below a full-time education. Without justification about why this was suitable for Y’s needs, this was fault.
Analysis – 1 June 2023 to 22 June 2023 While the Council increased Y’s provision to two hours of MindJam per week on 1 June 2023 this was still below full-time provision. Again, the Council cannot evidence why it considered this provision was suitable for Y’s needs. This was fault.
Analysis – 23 June 2023 to 13 September 2023 Inclusion of the monthly science subscription from 23 June 2023 did not materially increase Y’s access to education and still resulted in Y’s education being below full-time provision. Again, the Council cannot evidence why it considered this provision was suitable for Y’s needs. This was fault.
Analysis – 14 September 2023 to 30 November 2023 From 14 September 2023, the Council increased Y’s provision to 8 hours each week by including the sessions at Stomping Grounds Therapeutic school.
The Council has increased Y’s provision but this still falls below full-time provision. The Council cannot evidence why it considered this provision was suitable for Y’s needs instead of full-time provision. This was fault.
Analysis – 1 December 2023 to 23 January 2024 I cannot find the Council at fault for the decrease in Y’s provision from 1 December 2023 since it was Ms X who chose to cancel this provision. While I cannot find the Council at fault for the decrease in the provision, the Council delayed in increasing Y’s provision again until 23 January 2023. The delays in increasing this provision was fault by the Council.
Analysis – 24 January 2024 to 8 February 2024 On 24 January 2024, the Council put in place education for Y outside of school. The Council provided this education to Y at a rate Y could manage and had the potential to increase to up to 14 hours each week. This education was supplemented by MindJam sessions and the lesson subscription.
The Council has considered Y’s individual needs and put in place provision which is reflective of his needs and has the potential to increase as Y’s capacity to learn does. I do not find fault for the provision put in place from 24 January 2024.
Analysis – Award for Y’s missed provision I have highlighted in paragraphs 74 to 98 when the Council was at fault for failing to provide suitable education for Y.
Our guidance on remedies for a loss of educational provision recommends a payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The exact figure should be based on the impact on the child. This should take into account factors such as the amount of provision put in place and a child’s individual needs including any potential lost provision from an EHC Plan.
When considering the actions of the Council, Y’s individual needs and the provision Y received, I have summarised below the relevant awards for the loss of educational provisional caused by the Council’s fault: From 9 December 2021 to 12 January 2022 the Council failed to take any action in response to Ms X’s contact on 23 November 2023 about Y not attending school. Y was not accessing any other provision at this time. The Council should pay Ms X £2,000 per term for this fault totalling £385 across this period.
From 27 January 2022 to 14 June 2022 the Council failed to either enforce Y’s attendance at school or facilitate a reintegration plan for Y into school. This is mitigated by the fact the Council considered Y should be accessing education in mainstream education. The Council should pay Ms X £900 per term for this fault totalling £1,105 across this period.
From 14 June 2022 to 12 January 2023 the Council provided Y with one hour medical tuition each week alongside one hour MindJam sessions. The Council kept Y’s access to education under review and Y could not access any additional education at this time. Following this, the Council made a reasoned decision to pause education until 12 January 2023. I do not find fault with the Council for this period.
From 12 January 2023 to 5 March 2023 the Council failed to either enforce Y’s attendance at school, facilitate a reintegration plan for Y into school or provide any education for Y. This is mitigated by the fact the Council considered Y should be accessing education in mainstream education. The Council should pay Ms X £900 per term for this fault totalling £415 across this period.
From 6 March 2023 to 31 May 2023 the Council provided Y with one hour MindJam session each week. The Council should pay Ms X £1,900 per term for this fault totalling £1,460 across this period.
From 1 June 2023 to 22 June 2023 the Council provided Y with two hours MindJam session each week. The Council should pay Ms X £1,800 per term for this fault totalling £415 across this period.
From 23 June 2023 to 13 September 2023 the Council provided Y with two hours MindJam session each week and a monthly lesson subscription. The Council should pay Ms X £1,750 per term for this fault totalling £675 across this period.
From 14 September 2023 to 30 November 2023 the Council provided Y with two hours MindJam session and 2.5 hours at Stomping Grounds Therapeutic school each week and a monthly lesson subscription. The Council should pay Ms X £1,250 per term for this fault totalling £960 across this period.
From 1 December 2023 to 23 January 2024 the Council provided Y with two hours MindJam session each week and a monthly lesson subscription. The Council should pay Ms X £1,750 per term for this fault totalling £675 across this period.
In total, the Council should pay Ms X £6,090 for Y’s missed educational provision since January 2022 caused by the Council’s fault.
In addition to this payment, in its Stage 3 complaint response the Council also committed to funding the expenses Ms X paid on the MindJam sessions since November 2022. The cost of these MindJam sessions totalled £768. I agreed with the Council’s rationale to provide funding for these sessions.
I consider the Council should also fund the MindJam sessions from 17 June 2022 until 29 September 2022 during term-time. The Council considered Y could not access education in school from 17 June 2022 to 29 September 2022 and the MindJam sessions formed an integral part of Y’s limited educational provision. The cost of the term-time MindJam sessions from 17 June 2022 to 29 September 2022 was £408. This means the total rebate for the MindJam sessions is £1,176.
Agreed action
Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should: Provide an apology to Ms X and pay her £750 for the avoidable stress and frustration caused through its delays outside the statutory timescales in producing the final EHC Plan.
Provide an apology to Ms X and pay her £6,090 for the failure to provide suitable educational provision for her child from January 2022 to January 2024. Ms X may use this award to provide any catch-up educational provision she considers appropriate for her child.
Provide Ms X with a payment of £1,176 to reimburse the cost of the MindJam sessions she paid for from 17 June 2022 to 29 September 2022 and from November 2022 to 6 March 2023.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Final decision
There was fault by the Council as the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.
Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman