Council failures led to loss of educational provision for autistic child, Ombudsman finds

An investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has found fault by Slough Borough Council in failing to secure all the special educational provision on a child’s Education, Health and Care Plan over a 10-month period.

The council was also criticised for its poor compliant handling in relation to the case, and recommended to remind officers about their discretion to accept late requests from a complainant.

The case concerned Y, a girl with autism.

The mother, Ms X, home schooled Y from June 2022 to September 2023, although the council’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan had her educational placement as mainstream primary school. Y was due to transfer to secondary school in September 2023.

The council issued a final EHC Plan in February 2023, naming the existing primary school as Y’s educational placement until September and School A (a mainstream secondary school). Provision in Section F included:

• 10 hours a year of speech and language therapy; programme to be devised by the speech and language therapy (SLT) service and delivered by school staff;
• 4 hours a year of SLT time for the therapist to train school staff, review, write plans, attend meetings; and
• education provision in School A’s resource base receiving targeted support and some small group provision.

The council issued another final plan in September 2023 naming School A as Y’s educational placement.

However, Ms X sent a number of emails to the council’s SEND Team saying that school A could not meet Y’s needs.

Ms X did not send Y to School A. She said in emails to the council this was because School A had said it could not meet Y’s needs and had refused to let Y attend a summer event for new students going into year 7.

An officer from the SEND Team attended a meeting at School A with Ms X at the end of September because Y was not attending any school.

The Ombudsman noted: “Emails between School A and the SEND officer indicate the officer apologised for the SEND Team’s poor communication and liaison during Y’s transition.”

According to the report, the council consulted 10 educational placements in October and November 2023, including School B, Ms X’s preference. School B responded to the consultation saying it needed more information about why School A was not successful. The other schools either did not reply despite chaser emails from the council, declined to offer a place or said they were full.

Ms X complained to the council at the end of October.

Three months later, Ms X tried to escalate her complaint to stage two of the council’s complaint procedure. It replied saying she could not do this because her request was late. The complaints team said they had treated Ms X’s email as a new complaint under stage one of its procedure.

Months of complaints from Ms X and correspondence between the relevant institutions continued until the following summer.

The Ombudsman investigated and concluded that Slough had failed to secure all the special educational provision (SEP) in Y’s EHC Plan.

The report stated: “The Council was at fault between September 2023 and July 2024. It had a duty under Section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 to secure all the provision on Y’s EHC Plan.

“We expect councils to provide oversight, which may include making sure provision is available (either by securing suitable alternative provision or taking action against a parent to secure their child’s attendance) when made aware there is an issue. In Y’s case, the Council was aware in September 2023 that Y wasn’t attending School A. The Council arranged two hours a day of tuition between November 2023 and March 2024, but this was not full time and did not reflect the group provision or SLT in the Plan.”

The report also concluded that the council provided a “poor complaint response”, and was at fault because:

• It dealt with a request for escalation to stage two as a fresh complaint – which was not in line with its published procedure.
• The stage two response did not identify the council’s “ongoing duty” to ensure Y was receiving all the provision in Section F of her EHC Plan and ensure that equivalent provision was in place or offer an appropriate financial remedy for missed educational provision.

To remedy the injustice caused, the Ombusdman recommended that Slough pay Mrs X £6,000 to reflect Y’s lost SEP, and an additional £500 to acknowledge Mrs X’s “avoidable distress” and “time and trouble complaining”.

The Ombudsman also recommended the council issue a written reminder for all officers dealing with complaints that they have discretion to accept late requests for escalation to stage two, and that a request for escalation of the same complaint that has already had a stage one response, should not be processed as a new stage one complaint.

A Slough Borough Council spokesperson said: “We acknowledge the Ombudsman’s findings regarding Ms. X’s complaint and sincerely regret the shortcomings in Y’s Special Educational Provision between September 2023 and July 2024. While alternative tuition was provided, we accept it did not fully meet the requirements of Y’s EHC Plan. We are pleased to note that Y has been attending special school placement since September 2024.

"[…] Since the failings experienced by Ms. X, the council has taken corrective action, including expanding approved tuition providers to enhance availability and implementing a tracking system to ensure timely delivery of support.

"The council fully accepts the recommended £6,500 financial remedy for the loss of Special Education Provision and the impact on Y’s education and wellbeing."

The spokesperson added: "We also recognise delays in handling Ms. X’s complaint and have improved clarity in our processes. Measures have included reinforcing escalation procedures and enhancing communication with complainants.

"We apologise for these failings and remain committed to improving services for children with EHC Plans."

Lottie Winson