Summary: Ms M complains the Council has not secured a 38-week residential special school place for her son, B, as ordered by the Tribunal in June 2022. The Council has failed to do so despite a nationwide search and B remains without a school place. This is fault. The Council should continue its search and continue to make support available until it finds a place or amends B’s Plan.

The complaint

1. Ms M complains the Council has not secured a school place for her son, B. The Tribunal decided B required a 38-week residential special school in June 2022.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered information provided by Ms M and information provided by the Council. I invited Ms M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Ms M’s son, B, has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan maintained by the Council. B has autism, anxiety and sensory processing difficulties. B is a complex young man and is said to be very controlling. He was discharged from CAMHS because he would not engage with services.
6. A specialist education provider for chronically disengaged young people has had some success engaging with B at home since summer 2022.
7. Unhappy with B’s education, Ms M appealed to the SEND Tribunal. She wanted a 38-week residential special school placement for B.
8. Ms M’s appeal was successful. The Tribunal ruled in Ms M’s favour on 30 June 2022.
9. The Council issued an EHC Plan on 1 July 2022 which specified a 38-week residential special school in Section I.
10. However, despite nationwide searches, the Council has been unable to find a 38-week residential special school placement for B.
11. Ms M complained to the Council in October 2022 and January 2023. The Council explained the searches it had made to try and find a 38-week residential school place for B without success. The only offer the Council could make was a provider in Wales that could meet B’s care needs but not his educational needs. The Council offered to work with the provider to support B to attend a local college, but said this was not what Ms M wanted. It was also not what the Tribunal ordered.
12. The Council also offered to increase the two three-hour visits per week from the specialist education provider for chronically disengaged young people. Ms M declined.
13. Unhappy with the Council’s response, and the Council’s failure to secure a 38-week residential placement for B, Ms M complained to us.

Consideration

14. The Council recognises its obligation to secure the provision in B’s EHC Plan and has tried without success to find a 38-week residential placement for B.
15. The Council explained it has searched nationwide for a suitable school place and has contacted every potentially suitable provider on the Natspec register.
16. Natspec is an association for organisations that offer specialist further education and training for students aged 16 to 25 with learning difficulties and disabilities. The Council sent information about B’s needs to all schools that said they might be able to meet his needs, but none has offered a place.
17. We describe the Council’s failure to secure a 38-week residential placement for B as a service failure. The Council is obliged to arrange the placement, but every potential placement has said it cannot meet B’s needs.
18. In these circumstances, we look to see what alternative support the Council has offered B and his family.
19. The Council offered a residential placement in Wales that could meet B’s care needs, and support to attend a local college. The Council said Ms M declined.
20. The Council offered to increase provision from the specialist education provider for chronically disengaged young people that has had some success engaging with B at home. Ms M declined.
21. The Council offered social care support from a specialist care service for people with autism and learning difficulties. The service provides supported living, community outreach, day services, children and young people’s groups and support, family specialist support, and a helpline. Ms M declined.
22. The Council said the 38-week residential placements which initially thought they might be able to meet B’s needs but subsequently did not offer a place all raised concerns about B’s mental health.
23. In response, the Council approached CAMHS to secure support for B. However, the Council says it stopped because Ms M complained and does not want CAMHS involved.
24. Ms M asked the Council to build an extension to her home for B instead. The Council considered Ms M’s request but declined as it would not meet B’s education or care needs.

Ms M’s views

25. Ms M does not believe the Council has done enough to help B while it searches for a 38-week residential school place for him.
26. Ms M said she had accepted all the support offered “until it became detrimental to B’s welfare.”
27. Ms M said the offer to increase provision from the specialist education provider for chronically disengaged young people would not work because she had to be at home and she could not spare more time as she had to work and care for her other children. The Council offered to fund additional support, but Ms M said this, too, would not work.
28. Ms M said she declined the offer of support from a specialist care service for people with autism and learning difficulties because they had ‘abandoned’ B after previous involvement in 2021.
29. Ms M said she objected to the CAMHS referral because CAMHS input had almost resulted in B being detained for assessment, but that CAMHS “couldn’t be bothered to do that either.” She also said that CAMHS had been unable to find an in-patient bed for B. This related to concerns about his diet and eating, matters which are no longer a cause for concern.
30. Ms M said she had not declined the offer of the placement in Wales, but the Council could not agree the social care funding needed. I note from the limited evidence Ms M sent me it appears she was only willing to accept the placement subject to a number of conditions. I have not investigated the offer of the placement in Wales, but I will tell the Council Ms M would like to explore the offer further.
31. Ms M believes everybody has discriminated against B and treated him less well because of his disability, which she termed ableism.
32. Ms M sent me various documents and reports. These leave me in no doubt about the complexity of B’s needs. I do not underestimate how difficult home life must be for Ms M and her family.
33. However, they also show a wide range of professionals trying to help Ms M and B. The documents recognise the challenges Ms M and B face. Many of the suggestions professionals have made risk unsettling the stability in the household, a risk Ms M has in the past been unwilling to take.

Conclusions

34. The Council is at fault for failing to secure a 38-week residential placement for B as ordered by the Tribunal.
35. Ms M sees the 38-week residential placement as the answer to B’s problems. The Council must continue its search until it finds a suitable place or until it amends B’s EHC Plan.
36. In the meantime, Ms M may wish to weigh the disadvantages she sees in the support offered by the Council against the impact of B’s continuing isolation.
37. The Council has offered alternative support, and while I note Ms M’s reasons for declining the support offered, there are no grounds for me to criticise the Council further.
38. The annual review of B’s EHC Plan may be an opportunity for Ms M and the Council to explore other options for B. Ms M will, once again, have a right of appeal to the Tribunal if she disagrees with any changes the Council proposes.

Back to top

Final decision

39. I have completed my investigation. I uphold Ms M’s complaint. The Council has failed to secure a 38-week residential special school placement despite its efforts. This is fault. The Council should continue its search, and continue to offer support, until a place is found or until the Council amends B’s EHC Plan.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman