Key Points
- North London mother, referred to as Miss C, had to leave her job to personally tutor her special needs son due to failures by Harrow Council.
- Her son, B, who has learning and development difficulties and an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), was not receiving an education consistent with his plan.
- Harrow Council failed to carry out the annual EHCP review on time and did not ensure B’s educational provision was appropriate.
- Although B was receiving therapy prescribed by the EHCP, he was reportedly getting “no meaningful core education” aside from basic literacy skills.
- The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) found that the council never completed the September 2023 EHCP review, violating statutory deadlines.
- The delay and failures were seen as a “significant injustice” to Miss C, but any direct educational harm to B was considered uncertain.
- The council mishandled Miss C’s complaint escalation, incorrectly processing stage 3 and delaying her referral to the Ombudsman by about three months.
- The LGSCO recommended Harrow Council apologise and pay Miss C £500 compensation for the uncertainty and frustration caused.
- Harrow Council was contacted for comment but did not respond before publication.
What Happened to Miss C and Her Son B?
According to an investigation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), Miss C, a mother living in North London, was forced to give up her job to tutor her son B, who has special educational needs. B, whose full name is not disclosed, faces learning and developmental difficulties and is supported by an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). The EHCP is designed to ensure children with special needs receive the education, therapy, and support they require.
As reported by local journalist Charlotte Hart of MyLondon, Miss C complained that Harrow Council failed to conduct the annual review of B’s EHCP on time and failed to ensure he was getting the appropriate education outlined in his plan. The council acknowledged dissatisfaction with B’s education and promised a further review in September 2023, which was never completed.
Why Was the EHCP Review Not Completed on Time?
The EHCP underwent a scheduled annual review in July 2023. The council decided to amend the EHCP as a result but was legally obliged to complete and issue the amended plan within 12 weeks—in this case, by December 2023. The LGSCO investigation revealed that Harrow Council failed to meet this deadline. When Miss C escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2025, the EHCP review still remained uncompleted. The Ombudsman concluded this failure amounted to “a significant injustice” towards Miss C.
Emma Baker, reporting for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s office, cited the council’s inaction as a breach of statutory duty, stating that “the council never actually completed the September 2023 review.” The delay undermined the purpose of B’s EHCP, which is meant to regularly assess and update the child’s educational needs.
What Impact Did Council Failings Have on B’s Education?
Miss C told the Ombudsman that her son was only receiving the therapy specified in his EHCP, but lacked “meaningful core education,” meaning B had only basic literacy abilities. Despite this, the LGSCO noted it was not their role to judge the quality or suitability of educational provision by the provider, but rather whether the council made faults in overseeing the process.
The Ombudsman said:
“This is not to disregard Miss C’s comment that she was tutoring B herself, to make up for what she saw as gaps in the education he was receiving from [the provider]. However, the council does not supervise education on a day-to-day basis, and neither the council—nor, for that matter, the Ombudsman—can consider complaints about educational providers.”
Instead, the council’s responsibility was to ensure, in a general sense, that the education package arranged was adequate for B’s needs. Due to limited engagement B had with his educational provider at the time, the Ombudsman could not “point to any precise substantive impact” caused by the council’s failure but still recognised the significant injustice to Miss C.
How Did Harrow Council Handle Miss C’s Complaint?
Miss C was not satisfied with the outcome after the council’s internal stage 2 complaint review. In October 2024, she sought to escalate the complaint further. According to the LGSCO report, the council made procedural errors: it mistakenly accepted the complaint at stage 3 and gave Miss C a deadline for a response. This was incorrect because the escalation to stage 3 should have prompted the council to advise Miss C to contact the Ombudsman instead.
The mistake was only corrected in December 2024, after Miss C had chased for a response. The council then told her she must approach the Ombudsman if she wished to pursue her case. The Ombudsman noted this mistake caused an unnecessary delay of about three months in Miss C’s complaint reaching their office, which they ruled as “another injustice” to her.
What Did the Ombudsman Recommend?
Following its investigation, the LGSCO directed Harrow Council to issue a formal apology to Miss C and offer £500 compensation to reflect the uncertainty and frustration caused by the council’s multiple failings.
Emma Baker of the Ombudsman’s team said the compensation was intended to acknowledge the prolonged delay and procedural errors that affected Miss C, even if no direct educational harm to B was established.
How Has Harrow Council Responded?
Harrow Council was approached for comment regarding the Ombudsman’s findings and recommendations. As of the time of publication, the council had not issued a response.
What Does This Case Reveal About Challenges in Special Needs Education?
This case highlights ongoing difficulties families face when navigating the special educational needs system, particularly in ensuring timely and adequate reviews of EHCPs and receiving suitable education aligned with legal plans. Miss C’s experience shows the emotional and financial toll on parents when councils fail to meet statutory duties. It also underscores the administrative complexities councils face in responding to complaints.
