Somerset Council has been fined more than £3,000 after allowing a pupil with special needs to miss six months of school.

The young boy, referred to only as B, was unable to attend mainstream school after moving to Somerset with his mother, referred to as Mrs X, in September 2021.

Mrs X made numerous formal complaints after Somerset County Council (now Somerset Council) failed to make changes to her son's care plan and provide him with a personal budget for being educated outside of a school setting.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) has ordered the council to formally apologise and compensate the family for the distress caused.

The ombudsman exists to investigate allegations of "maladministration" and "service failure" in the public sector – in other words, instances in which it is claimed councils have not fully carried out their legal duties to taxpayers.

Before moving to Somerset, B had been formally diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), as well as auditory processing difficulties and a moderate development language disorder.

These conditions required him by law to have an education and health care plan (EHCP), with his education being agreed between his parents, the council and his chosen school.

B attended an independent specialist day school outside of Somerset throughout much of 2021 and received support from a neurodivergent charity.

advertisement

Mrs X first contacted the council about her son's provision in late-August 2021 ahead of a move into Somerset at the end of September.

The council had requested B's file from his previous local authority after Mrs X's initial contact – but due to a delayed response, B had to stop attending school in October 2021.

Mrs X said her son was "struggling with a neurodivergent burnout" at this time and "needed rest and support in his home environment".

She met with council officers in November 2021 – for what she believed was B's annual review – and asked about her son being educated outside of a mainstream school setting with a personal budget due to "trauma" he had experienced.

The school emailed the council later in November 2021, stating that it could not meet B's needs and that he had stopped attending – though he would remain on their roll and be welcomed back if he wanted to attend.

B's actual annual review took place in December 2021, with Mrs X and the school disagreeing as to whether it could meet B's needs in light of his "burnout".

The council remained in contact with B's school throughout January 2022 and sent Mrs X his updated EHCP in early-February.

Mrs X said she was "distressed" by the council's intention to school B at a mainstream school and lodged a formal complaint in March 2022.

advertisement

In its response, the council admitted that it had failed to progress B's annual review within the statutory time-scales set by the Department for Education (DfE), blaming staff absence, and said it was considering Mrs X's request for a personal budget.

Dissatisfied with this response, Mrs X lodged a further complaint in April 2022 – though this was not reviewed by the council until June 2022, at which time it agreed to pay for support provided by the weekly sessions B was receiving with the neurodivergency charity.

Further changes to B's EHCP were sent to Mrs X in June – but she remained dissatisfied and complained to the ombudsman.

The final EHCP was ultimately issued in late-July 2022, with B now receiving education outside of a school setting and being removed from his former school's roll over the summer holidays.

The ombudsman concluded that the council had been at fault for the handling and timing of B's annual review, causing Mrs X "confusion and uncertainty".

The council's delays, the investigation found, had "caused Mrs X frustration" with considerable time being taken up up by filing and chasing up formal complaints.

The ombudsman also criticised the council for the delays in issuing the new EHCP, which denied Mrs X the opportunity for a formal appeal.

While the council was entitled to exclude certain activities from B's personal budget over concerns that it "did not include enough educational content", it was at fault for not securing alternative provision for B sooner, which caused Mrs X "distress, trouble and a financial impact in home educating B".

The ombudsman ordered the council to formally apologise to Mrs X and to pay her £3,300 in compensation – £300 "in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused" and £3,000 to reflect B's lost school time, to be spent for B's benefit.

It has also ordered the council to remind its staff that they are bound by statutory time limits regarding such placements and to "put in place alternative provision without delay".

A council spokesman said: "We have accepted the findings and apologised to the families for any distress caused to them. We have also completed all the activities requested of us in the agreed time-scales.

"Our most recent feedback from Ofsted recognises the improvements we have made across children's services but we know there is more to do and are committed to learning from all complaints."