County council delayed acting after Tribunal order, Ombudsman finds

The woman behind the complaint, Mrs K, complained that the council failed to arrange an Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) package for her daughter (X) within five weeks of a Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal Consent Order.

She also complained that the council:

• did not fulfil its duties to provide X with the contents of her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan;
• did not fulfil its duties to provide X with alternative provision after she stopped attending school;
• delayed making a payment for items covered by a personal budget and did not put in place a budget for ongoing provision;
• delayed refunding payments Mrs K and her husband (Mr K) had funded because of the council’s delays;
• delayed implementing remedies it agreed in its complaint response.

Outlining the case background, the Ombudsman noted that X has an autism spectrum condition (ASC), which became more noticeable in her later years in primary school. By the end of primary school, she was finding it difficult to participate in school life.

The primary school had introduced support from an online mentoring/counselling service (Organisation 1).

In April 2024, Mrs K had appealed a council decision to not amend X’s EHC Plan, before her move to secondary school.

From September, X was added to the role of a mainstream secondary school. That school continued the sessions X had been attending with Organisation 1. It also agreed to fund some tennis coaching Mr and Mrs K had previously been funding.

In November Mrs K met with an officer from the council about the appeal. They made some amendments to a working document about proposals for X’s EHC Plan. The agreed working document detailed the following weekly provision (with outcomes and costs):

• sessions with Organisation 1 to continue;
• an alternative provision group session, for socialisation, support and skills activities (provided by Organisation 2);
• PE sessions with an organisation offering sporting opportunities (Organisation 3);
• sessions with a therapeutic learning service. The working documents named an example provider (Organisation 4);
• subscriptions, including to a home delivered learning resource provided by a named provider (Organisation 5);
• a personal budget for some subscriptions and items like stationery; and
• a laptop, so X could access online learning.

In early November, at a Tribunal hearing, the council conceded that a mainstream school could not meet X’s needs.

The Tribunal issued a Consent Order, which ordered the council to amend X’s EHC Plan to:

• reflect X’s needs and provision in line with that agreed in the working document;
• delete the section that detailed that X would attend a school.

After the Tribunal hearing, Mrs K withdrew X from school, due to the distress attending was causing her.

The council missed the deadline for complying with the Tribunal’s Order which was in mid-December 2024.

The council issued a final amended EHC Plan in early September. It provided X with a laptop at the end of December 2025.

Considering the complaint, the Ombudsman found that the council delayed around three and a half months in issuing a draft revised EHC Plan, following the Tribunal’s Order and around a further five months to issue the final Plan. That delay was fault.

The Ombudsman found the council also delayed putting in place provision outlined in the working document, which was the basis of the Tribunal’s Consent Order.

Therefore, X missed “significant sections of the provision agreed by the Tribunal’s Consent Order”.

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to:

• Apologise to Mrs K and her daughter;
• For the missed educational provision to X of around three terms, make a symbolic payment of £5,000;
• For the ongoing issue of missing PE provision, make Mrs K an extra payment of £225 for each month that X’s PE provision remains outstanding, up to a maximum of six months;
• For Mrs K’s avoidable distress, make her a payment of £300.

The Ombudsman added: “The complaint has highlighted particular problems for Mrs K, due to the particular challenges of children receiving education other than at school (EOTAS). So I recommend that a council officer (at a sufficiently senior level to make recommendations) reviews what happened in this complaint.

“They should focus on whether there are any lessons to be learned about supporting the parents of children receiving EOTAS. Questions this review might consider include:

• how is the council ensuring timely assessment and delivery of EOTAS as specified in EHC Plans;
• what mechanisms are in place to review and address delays or failures of provision;
• does the council have a clear process for commissioning educational providers to ensure there are no delays in making arrangements for children with EOTAS;
• could the council identify members of staff who monitor and oversee the most complex EOTAS packages;
• does the council have comprehensive information on the SEND Local Offer about EOTAS?”

Surrey County Council has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson