Town hall bosses have been ordered to pay £1,250 to a mother whose son missed school for a full term in 2023.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman upheld the mother, Ms B’s, complaint against Trafford Council after it delayed finding a new school for her son, "C", who had special education needs and/or disabilities (SEND).

The delay occurred after a review of the boy’s special needs support in January 2023. This resulted in a delay in naming a new school of C.

It meant he was out of school from March to September after she withdrew him from his existing school because of concerns about his behaviour and mental health.

Ms B also complained that the council took too long to answer her complaints and in two cases failed to send her its final responses at all.

The mum said the council’s failings caused C to miss education and caused distress to herself and their family.

Under the 1996 Education Act councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils who have been excluded, as a result of illness, or for other reasons.

At the beginning of 2023, C attended a mainstream primary school in Trafford. He had an education health and care plan (EHCP) which said he should receive various support, including a personalised speech and language therapy programme.

But in mid-January, C’s school told the council it could no longer meet his needs. There was an emergency review of the EHCP and it requested that C be moved to a new school.

The council agreed to amend C’s plan, although Ms B received no notice of the amendment.

Ms B asked if C could go to a mainstream school with a small specialist class attached which would be designed to meet his needs.

However, the council’s special educational needs panel decided that C’s needs would be better met in a special school.

In early March, the council consulted a mainstream school, in line with Ms B’s wishes, but soon after the school said it could not meet the boy’s needs and suggested a special school would be more appropriate.

The following day, Ms B took C out of school because of "the escalation in his behaviour and deterioration in mental health, and also due to the effects on his brother in school".

The council was unaware at this point that C was not going to school.

At the end of April, the school contacted the council, referring C to the council’s school absence team.

There then ensued a back-and-forth discussion between the council and the school over the provision of home tuition which the local authority said the school should arrange. 

But in May Ms B made it clear she no longer believed C being out of school or receiving home tuition was a good idea.

She said that if no new school had been found for him he would have to return to his existing school.

After this point – until the end of term – C did not return to school or receive education at home.

“Furthermore, the council did not consider taking any further action, either to find a different way of delivering education provision (known as Section 19 provision) to C, or to enforce his attendance at his existing school,” the Ombudsman’s report said.

“The council did, however, continue consulting both mainstream schools and a special school. It had no success with mainstream schools, which were either full or could not meet C’s needs.

“And it did not receive a response from the special school before the end of the school year, despite chasing it for a response in June and July.”

In mid-September, the council identified a new school and named it in C’s ECHP.

The Ombudsman said that the council "made significant" efforts to accommodate Ms B’s preference for C’s education in a mainstream school, but that several schools said "no".

“This likely contributed to the delay and provides some mitigation for it,” the report said.

“However, the statutory timescale is non-negotiable and therefore the council was at fault.

“The delay meant C was out of school for a full term and did not get any education or special educational needs support in that period.”

The Ombudsman said that Ms B made six complaints to the council. She dropped two of them and the council sent responses to two others without any delay.

The report went on: “But the council delayed its response to Ms B’s stage two complaint about C being out of school; failed to respond to her stage two complaint about a referral to children’s social care; significantly delayed its stage one response to another complaint about children’s social care and failed to respond to Ms B’s stage two complaint about the same matter.”

The Ombudsman said this likely caused Ms B "distress and inconvenience", adding: “The council should respond to any outstanding complaints and should make a symbolic payment to Ms B to recognise her injustice.”

The symbolic payments amounted to £1,250. 

Meanwhile, the council has agreed to provide the Ombudsman with an action plan which sets out how, in future, it will avoid similar failures to amend EHCPs and to ensure that children who are not going to school receive education and special educational needs support.

“The council will provide us with evidence it has done these things,” the report said.

“The council was at fault.”

A council spokesperson said: “Trafford Council is committed to providing the best possible support to our children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). 

“We accept the Ombudsman’s findings in this case and we are fully complying with the recommendations that have been made in the report. 

"We offer our sincere apologies to those parties affected and will continue to ensure all SEND pupils in our borough are helped and supported in every way possible.”