Council recommended to pay £12k due to SEND failings

Meanwhile, the Ombudsman found the child’s family were not able to appeal to the SEND tribunal as they did not have an updated plan to appeal.

The woman behind the complaint, Miss X, complained that her child, Y, did not receive an education or the provision in section F of an EHC Plan after they had to leave an alternative educational provision.

Y had an EHC Plan that named a mainstream school, which they had not attended since 2022. From October 2023, Y had been attending an alternative educational provision for three days a week, organised through the school.

In January 2024, there was an annual review of the EHC Plan. Y was in Year 9. The review recommended the EHC Plan was amended.

The review noted that Y had been offered additional provision but had declined. Three days a week was the maximum available at the alternative provision they were attending. A draft EHC Plan was issued in August 2024.

Y was advised by the Police to stop attending the alternative provision at the beginning of February 2024 as they could not be kept safe in the area.

Y was placed in foster care voluntarily in August 2024, under section 20 of the Children’s Act 1989.

There was a review of the EHC Plan in January 2025. This said that Y had been offered alternative provision but it had not started as Y did not want to engage with a provider they associated with the mainstream school on the EHC Plan.

The review noted that Miss X, Y’s relative and Y all wanted the mainstream school to be removed from Y’s EHC Plan as it was a barrier to them accessing any further provision. The school said they could not meet Y’s needs.

Y was removed from the mainstream school roll in March 2025.

Y moved back home to live with Miss X the following month.

Y started at a placement of 15 hours a week at an alternative provision in February 2026.

Considering the case, the Ombudsman said: “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 the provision is not in place at any time.”

The Ombudsman added: “The Council has said that ‘Y was on roll at a school for this period [February 2024 until 3 March 2025] and it was felt the school could offer alternative provision during this period’.

“Between February and July 2024, after Y was advised not to return to the alternative provision, I can see no evidence that tuition or alternative provision was offered to Y.”

The investigation found that the council failed to finalise Y’s EHC Plan for four years. This meant that Miss X had no right of appeal to the SEND tribunal to challenge the educational setting and provision in the EHC Plan.

The Ombudsman said: “The Council then failed to adequately monitor the alternative provision provided by the school. There is no evidence of any alternative provision offered from February 2024 until July 2024, for one and a half terms. There was some provision offered in September 2024, but Y did not engage.

“From November 2024 a laptop and online tuition was proposed, but this was not put in place until 2 months later and was too difficult for Y. So, Y received virtually no education from November 2024 until March 2026, a further three and a half terms.”

Considering an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused, the Ombudsman said: “Given that Y was at GCSE course age and a looked-after child, I consider a payment at the highest level for 5 terms is a suitable remedy.”

The Ombudsman recommended the council:

• Apologise to Miss X and Y;
• Pay Y £12,000;
• Prepare and implement an action plan to ensure that final EHC Plans are issued within legal timescales after annual reviews;
• Prepare and implement an action plan to ensure monitoring occurs of children in alternative provision with an EHC Plan, whether provided directly by the Council or via a school placement. This plan should ensure that children who have a EHC Plan receive the provision in Section F.

Dorset Council has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson