LGO accuses council of breaching the law after boy goes without education

The Local Government Ombudsman has accused a county council of failing in its duties under the Education Act 1996 after a boy with special needs went without education for several months and then received only a few hours a week for the next year.

The report by the LGO, Anne Seex, said the 15-year-old boy, Z, had been looked after by his grandparents, Mr and Mrs A, since he was 7.

When he was 13, he stopped attending school because of anxiety related to autism.

His GP referred him to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS), which told Buckinghamshire County Council that Z was autistic and would be unable to cope in a mainstream school.

The service offered Z some education at an attached School Room, but it only had capacity to offer 5.5 hours of education per week. Z was educated there between May 2010 until April 2011. Prior to that, from February 2010 to May 2010, he received no education.

The LGO investigation found that Buckinghamshire was aware from March 2010 that it was likely that Z had special educational needs, but did not use its powers to assess them.

The local authority also failed to inform Mrs A that she could ask for an assessment.

When she did find this out, she put in a request immediately. Z was assessed in November 2010 and it was concluded that he needed specialist education. However, he only started special school in April 2011.

The Ombudsman found Buckinghamshire guilty of maladministration causing injustice.

Seex said: “There is no evidence that the council ever tried to establish what education would be suitable for the boy and what he could cope with in his medical condition.”

She added: “The council’s position at the time seems to have been the Education Act 1996 requires only five hours tuition on medical grounds. This is wrong – as a child’s health improves, the hours should normally be increased.”

The council’s chief executive has indicated that Buckinghamshire will accept the LGO’s recommendations. These were that it should:

• create a fund equal to the cost of private tuition for the hours of education that Z lost. This will be held for him until he is 21 and be used to provide him with “additional tuition, educational opportunities or equipment that an educational psychologist recommends would benefit him, but not for any provision to which he would be entitled as part of his statement of special educational needs”; and
• apologise to Mr and Mrs A and pay them £2,000 in recognition of the impact its maladministration had on them.

Philip Hoult