Council and ICB to pay more than £10k for SEN failures following investigation by Ombudsman

To remedy the injustice caused, the council and ICB were recommended to pay a combined £10,950 to the complainant and her adult daughter.

The woman behind the complaint, Mrs M, complained on behalf of herself and her daughter Miss D, a young adult with an EHC Plan.

She complained about faults by the council and the Integrated Care Board (ICB), leading to Miss D being unable to go to college and missing out on special educational provision. She also complained about poor communication by the organisations.

Specifically, she said that:

• the council and NHS West Yorkshire ICB failed to work together to ensure Miss D received appropriate transport to college with medically trained escorts between 1 July 2023 and 31 August 2024;
• the council failed to ensure Miss D received the special educational provision named in Section F of her EHC Plan between 1 July 2023 and 31 August 2024;
• this has happened despite the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman upholding a related complaint against the council in 2023 about the same issues. LGSCO’s decision concluded Miss D had missed six terms of education between 2021 and 2023; and
• the council’s and ICB’s communication with Mrs M about this issue, including complaint handling, has been poor.

Miss D receives care funded through NHS continuing healthcare. Miss D has a tracheostomy, a tube inserted through an artificial opening in the windpipe to help a person breathe.

The Ombudsman noted: “Tracheostomies need specialist care such as suctioning to remove secretions, caring for the opening, changing the tube and emergency care. Miss D cannot do this for herself. People caring for her need specialist training so they can do this safely.”

The background to the case was that Miss D’s placement at College Z, about an hour away from her home, broke down in September 2022.

The Ombudsman investigated and upheld a previous complaint from Mrs M about Miss D not getting the provision in her EHC Plan to the end of June 2023.

Following a review of her EHC Plan in October 2023, Miss D got a place at a new college (College X) in November 2023. Miss D’s updated EHCP named this college in Section I.

College X is around two hours away from Miss D’s home. The council agreed to fund a taxi to college X and the ICB agreed to fund a care worker trained in tracheostomy care to escort Miss D in the taxi.

Mrs M complained to the Ombudsman again in 2024. This was because Miss D could not get to college X as there was no medically trained escort to support her while travelling there.

The Ombudsman investigated and concluded that while the ICB took some action to try to recruit and train suitable transport escorts, overall it took “too long” to do so between November 2023 and July 2024.

The report noted: “The council and ICB failed to work together to ensure Miss D had usable escorted transport in place in good time after getting a place at College X. This was contrary to the National Framework and fault.”

It added: “Mrs M taking the initiative and helping to find escorts and training was instrumental in eventually getting a transport escort service in place for Miss D in July 2024. This is not something Mrs M should have had to do.”

Turning to special educational provision, the Ombudsman found that while Miss D could not attend college, the council did not ensure she received the provision set out in section F of her EHC Plan.

The Ombudsman found this was contrary to the council's duty under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014 and therefore fault.

Summarising the injustice to Miss D, the Ombudsman said: “Missing out on all her education for a year, including essential special educational needs support, therapies and social interaction, is a significant injustice to an already vulnerable young person.

“Miss D is clearly loved and well cared for in her family home and had a respite placement, but these were not substitutes for the education she was entitled to. This comes on top of missing six terms of education between September 2021 and June 2023, as LGSCO found in its earlier investigation.”

The Ombudsman added: “For some of the time Miss D could not attend college, she spent extra weeks in respite care in another county a long way from home and her immediate family. While there were no concerns about her care there, it was an injustice to Miss D that she needed to spend extra time in respite care rather than enjoying her usual family life at home, simply because she could not get to college.”

Meanwhile, the Ombudsman found that Mrs M’s caring role expanded significantly and for a prolonged period because of the organisations’ faults.

The report noted: “This caused her to feel, in her own words 'exhausted to an unimaginable level'. Mrs M could not take her usual breaks from her caring role or spend quality time with her son.”

Lastly, the Ombudsman observed: “The council’s failures to properly consider Mrs M’s complaint and safeguarding report led to two missed opportunities to act and consider the risks of harm to Miss D from her missing out on education and therapies for such a long time. The distressing uncertainty from this is an injustice to Mrs M.”

To remedy the injustice to Miss D, the council and ICB were recommended to take the following actions:

• The council and ICB will ensure Miss D’s transport, escort service and educational provision are now in place and there are effective checks on whether they continue to stay in place.
• The council and ICB will each pay £3,600 (£7,200 in total) for Mrs M to use for Miss D’s benefit, in recognition of three terms of missed education, including the loss of essential special educational support which cannot be remedied through additional ‘catch-up’ provision.
• The council and ICB will each pay £500 (£1,000 in total) for Mrs M to use for Miss D’s benefit, in recognition of the impact the organisations’ faults have had on Miss D’s enjoyment of family life for a prolonged period.

To remedy the injustice to Mrs M, the council and ICB were recommended to:

• Send Mrs M written apologies for the faults and injustice identified through the investigation.
• Offer Mrs M a carer’s assessment as a matter of urgency and no later than one month after the final decision.
• Each pay Mrs M £1,000 (£2,000 in total) in recognition of the impact on her of the additional caring responsibilities she took on while Miss D was out of college.

The council was told to pay Mrs M £500 in recognition of the avoidable distress, frustration and time and trouble she suffered as a result of its poor communication, including about safeguarding and complaint handling.

The ICB was recommended to pay Mrs M £250 in recognition of the avoidable distress, frustration and time and trouble she suffered as a result of its poor communication.

A spokesperson for Bradford Council said: “We have accepted the findings of the Ombudsman and apologised to Miss D and Mrs M. We know that mistakes were made in providing the right support for Miss D, and while we did look at solutions for her complex needs, this wasn’t done as quickly as it could have been. We have worked with our partners in health to learn the lessons from this case.”

A spokesperson at Bradford District and Craven Health and Care Partnership said: “We fully acknowledge and accept that the support provided fell short of what was required and expected and we apologise unreservedly to the family. We will be working closely with Bradford Council to make sure a joint working procedure for transport requiring specialist escorts is in place.”

Lottie Winson