Council found at fault for failing to offer alternative educational provision when looked after child moved in with new family

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has in part upheld a parent's complaint in relation to Manchester City Council’s education provision for his adoptive son, finding that the local authority “failed to consider its section 19 duties”, leading to the child missing out on education.

Mr X complained that the council had failed to explain the education, health and care plan (EHCP) process to him as a new parent when a looked after child (B) moved in with him and his wife; failed to offer any alternative provision; and delayed the process.

Summarising the key events, the Ombudsman said Mr and Mrs X contacted the council in August 2023. They said they were in the process of adopting B who would be moving to the area in October 2023.

Mr and Mrs X were signposted to the special educational needs and disabilities information advice and support service (SENDIASS).

The previous council area where B moved from (council Y) provided B’s draft EHC Plan.

In November 2023, the council asked Mrs X for details of what schools she wanted it to consult with. It asked whether B would still be attending school in the Council Y area until a new placement was named.

Mrs X confirmed B moved in with them on 22 November 2023. She said B was not currently in school. She attached a list of preferred schools, and the council agreed to begin consultations.

The council issued a draft EHC Plan in the following month.

In January 2024, Mrs X asked for an update. The council asked if the parents would like some information about tuition whilst it consulted with placements. Mrs X agreed to this.

The following month, it was noted most schools the council had consulted with were either at capacity or could not meet B’s needs. The council identified school C could meet B’s needs. But Mr and Mrs X said it was unsuitable.

Mrs X told the council she had spoken with council Y. She said B’s EHC Plan had been altered to say his primary needs were social, emotional and mental health [SEMH] related. But she said it should be social and communication.

Manchester City Council finalised the EHC Plan in March 2024 naming school C. Mr and Mrs X appealed against the named school.

A further EHC Plan was issued in May 2024 naming a new placement.

Considering part (a) of Mr X’s complaint – that the council failed to explain the EHC plan process to him when B moved in with him and his wife – the Ombudsman said: “I have not seen any evidence to suggest Mr and Mrs X asked the council to explain the process. Based on the evidence provided, SENDIASS provided details about the process. This is what we would expect, and I do not find fault by the council.”

Turning to part b of the complaint, the Ombudsman observed that the council were aware in November 2023 that X had moved in, and that he wasn’t currently in school. At that point, the council should have considered whether its section 19 duties applied.

The report noted: “In January 2024, the council asked Mr and Mrs X if they wanted information around tuition for B whilst it was looking for a school placement which they agreed to. But there is no evidence of any further action taken. This is fault which meant B received no education.”

The Ombudsman highlighted that when a child can no longer attend their previous placement specified in the EHC Plan after the transfer to a new area, the new authority “must place the child temporarily at an appropriate educational institution other than that specified”, until the EHC Plan is formally amended.

Mr X informed the Ombudsman that during the time B was not in education, he and his wife spent money on educational apps and one-off resources. He said this caused them both “significant distress” and prevented Mrs X from returning to work earlier.

Finally, turning to part c of the complaint, the Ombudsman found no evidence to suggest there had been an “unnecessary drift” in the case- noting that the EHC Plan was finalised within a “reasonable time”.

To remedy the injustice caused, the Ombudsman recommended Manchester City Council:

• write to Mr and Mrs X with an apology;
• reimburse Mr X for money he spent on B’s education between November 2023 and March 2024;
• pay Mr X and Mrs X £200 in recognition of the distress caused to them by the fault identified; and
• pay Mr X £2,000 for the educational benefit of B, to recognise the impact of its failings on B’s education (between November 2023 and March 2024).

A Manchester City Council spokesperson said: "We have engaged fully in the Ombudsman's investigation into this case and we accept the decision against the Council. We will use this case as an opportunity to improve our service, and we have taken on board a range of recommendations to avoid similar situations in the future. We are also working with the family to ensure the young person has access to the appropriate education support they need."

Lottie Winson