Council failed to secure school placement for child with special educational needs for “significant period”, Ombudsman finds

Following an investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), the council agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments to recognise the injustice, and use the complaint as a case study to review the faults identified.

The woman behind the complaint, Miss X, complained that her child had “very limited education” for several years, that the council failed to find a suitable placement for them, and that it failed to provide Section F provision as outlined in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.

Miss X’s child (Y) has complex special educational needs.

Y previously attended School 1. This did not work out, and they stopped attending in 2023.

Section F of Y’s EHC Plan included: direct and weekly Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) support, direct fortnightly Occupational Therapy (OT), and “provision of weekly targeted 1:1 therapeutic mentor support…whilst engaging in an activity of Y’s interest…Mindjam is a good example of such a programme”.

In early 2024, the council reopened a tuition referral for Y, for 15 hours a week. These were offered for a few months. Y could not engage due to high levels of anxiety.

In summer 2024, the council agreed to issue Y with an amended EHC Plan after a reassessment. It confirmed tuition would continue from September until it found suitable provision for Y.

In September 2024, the tuition provider contacted Miss X. She said Y was not ready to engage but hoped Y would participate in the future.

In November 2024, Miss X forwarded the council emails from Mindjam requesting payment. She understood the council agreed to fund sessions for Y as they were not receiving any other provision.

In late November 2024, the council issued an amended final EHC Plan. This said Y would attend “a maintained specialist setting”. It did not name a specific placement.

In December 2024, Miss X emailed the council about tuition not working for Y. She described the struggles and barriers Y faced around suitable education for their needs, and other suggested placements. She also had no response about Mindjam payments.

In mid-February 2025, the council emailed Miss X with an updated final amended EHC Plan. It made a change to include, “a maintained specialist secondary setting” from September 2025.

In March 2025, Miss X forwarded emails to the council from Mindjam, requesting payments for Y’s ongoing sessions.

In mid-April 2025, Miss X formally complained about Y’s lack of education for years. Y still had no placement and was due to move into secondary school.

In May 2025, Mindjam emailed Miss X about non-payments. It would have to stop sessions. Miss X contacted the council about her dissatisfaction.

In late May 2025, the council sent its Stage 1 complaint response. It upheld her complaint, noting it had not identified a suitable school placement despite carrying out extensive consultations. It recognised that the tuition offered was not successful or consistent.

In July 2025, Miss X chased the council about Mindjam. The council met with Miss X.

In early September 2025, the council sent a Stage 2 response. It apologised for its delayed response. It added there was no agreement the council would fund Mindjam provision. Miss X then complained to the Ombudsman.

Between December 2024 and September 2025, the council consulted with many schools, some more than once, with no successful offers for Y.

Analysing the case in relation to school placement and alternative provision, the Ombudsman said: “During the period I am considering, I recognise the council’s noted efforts in carrying out numerous school consultations. However, it ultimately did not fulfil its statutory duty as Y remained without a suitable school place. This is fault, causing injustice to Y.

“I appreciate the difficulties around this, but given the length of time Y had been out of school, the council could have done more. It does not appear it scrutinised placement responses to review whether it was satisfied these met statutory tests for refusal. This is fault.”

Meanwhile, the Ombudsman could not see that the council considered any potential alternatives for education until summer 2025, “very late down the line”, despite Miss X’s concerns.

Turning to Section F provision and Mindjam, the Ombudsman observed that the council also had a legal duty to provide Section F provision.

The report stated: “The council has not provided evidence it secured provision [in Section F of the EHCP]. This is fault. This, and the above, caused significant injustice to Y as they missed out on education and most of the provision they were entitled to, for 3 school terms (during the period I am considering).”

The report continued: “Miss X also went to time and trouble arranging Mindjam provision for Y from October 2024. She thought the council agreed to fund these and forwarded invoices. I cannot see the council responded to her, despite saying it would a few times. This led Mindjam to stop the sessions in May 2025 and left Y without any provision at all. This poor communication is fault, causing her significant frustration.

“The council only addressed this in its Stage 2 response to say it did not agree to pay for this. I have not seen evidence of a pre-arranged agreement. However, Y’s EHC Plan specifically said Mindjam as a good example of therapeutic support Y required. In the absence of arranging an alternative, it had a legal duty to provide (and fund) this, and I can reasonably understand Miss X’s view.”

Lastly, the Ombudsman found fault with the council’s complaint handling.

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

• Apologise to Miss X and Y for the injustice caused by the faults identified;
• Pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £5,500 to recognise the impact to Miss X and Y with missed special educational provision and education;
• Pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £100 to recognise her additional injustice - time and trouble, uncertainty and distress;
• Use the complaint as a case study to review the faults identified. Particularly in relation to processes around how the council fulfils its alternative provision duties, how it monitors education it offers for a child, how it considers repeated unsuccessful consultation responses for a child out of school, and how it ensures it secures provision in EHC Plans.
• Identify relevant points of learning found during the review and share with the Ombudsman how it will act on these to improve its services, with actions it intends to take.

The London Borough of Merton has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson