Key Points
- Brent Council, a North London local authority, has paid nearly £10,000 to the family of a disabled and autistic teenager after failings resulted in him missing four school terms of educational support.
- The Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) investigation found that the council failed to provide support in line with the pupil’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) from September 2023 to December 2024, including speech and language therapy (SALT) and occupational therapy (OT).
- The pupil, referred to as Y in the LGO report, is non-verbal, communicates through facial expressions and body language, is autistic, and has motor and sensory difficulties requiring significant ongoing care.
- Y’s brother, referred to as Mr X, complained that the council failed to provide appropriate education as outlined in Y’s 2022 EHCP and did not conduct annual reviews.
- Mr X stated that Y “has been deprived of essential therapies and support critical for his development”, leading to regression in communication abilities and increased frustration.
- During the period, Y lived at home with support from Brent’s Adult Services care package; Mr X returned to live with his mother to care for Y, avoiding care home placement.
- The Ombudsman noted that Mr X and Y’s parents suffered “avoidable distress and trouble”, while Y missed necessary help for speech and language difficulties.
- Brent Council accepted the failings, implemented “service improvements” to prevent recurrence, and paid £9,600, set at the highest end of LGO tariff (£900-£2,400 per term) to recognise family pressures, for Y’s benefit.
What Caused Brent Council to Fail in Providing Y’s EHCP Support?
As detailed in the LGO report, the pupil – anonymised as Y – relies on facial expressions and body language for communication due to being non-verbal. He faces autism alongside motor and sensory difficulties, necessitating intensive care.
Y’s 2022 EHCP outlined specific provisions, yet the council neglected these from September 2023 through December 2024. No annual reviews occurred, breaching statutory duties.
As reported by the Harrow Online team in their article on the LGO findings, Mr X, Y’s brother, complained that Brent Council “failed to provide appropriate education” matching the EHCP. He emphasised that his brother “has been deprived of essential therapies and support critical for his development”.
This deprivation caused regression in Y’s communication skills and heightened frustration, per the Ombudsman’s assessment. During this time, Y remained at home under Brent Adult Services’ care package, without school-based education.
How Did the Family Cope During Y’s Four Terms Without Education?
According to the LGO report, as covered extensively by Harrow Online, Mr X relocated to his mother’s home to assist in Y’s care. He informed the Ombudsman that without this, Y might have required care home placement.
The family endured substantial strain. The LGO determined that Mr X and Y’s parents faced “avoidable distress and trouble” while seeking resolution.
Y, meanwhile, lost vital “help and support for his speech and language difficulties”, exacerbating his challenges. Harrow Online’s coverage quotes the report directly: the council’s inaction left the teenager without the structured therapies essential for his progress.
No alternative educational placements materialised during the 16-month period, leaving the family to manage independently alongside adult social care.
What Did the Local Government Ombudsman Rule in This Case?
The LGO investigation concluded fault lay squarely with Brent Council for non-compliance with EHCP terms. As per the official LGO findings, summarised by Harrow Online, the ombudsman recommended a remedy reflecting the severity.
LGO guidance proposes £900 to £2,400 per term for lost education due to council fault. This case warranted the upper limit: four terms at £2,400 each totalled £9,600.
The ombudsman elevated it to this “highest end of the tariff” to account for “pressures placed on the family”. The payment must benefit Y directly.
Harrow Online reports the LGO’s precise wording: the sum addresses both educational loss and familial burden.
How Has Brent Council Responded to the LGO’s Findings?
In a statement acknowledged by Harrow Online, Brent Council accepted it “failed to provide the right education over this time”.
The authority has enacted “service improvements” to avert future lapses. Details include enhanced processes for EHCP delivery, though specifics remain general in public disclosures.
No further payments or admissions beyond the £9,600 appear in reports. The council links to its EHCP commitments, but the incident reveals implementation gaps.
What Is an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) and Why Does It Matter?
EHCPs legally bind councils to tailored education, health, and social care for children with special needs. Y’s 2022 plan specified SALT and OT, integral for his non-verbal autism and sensory issues.
Harrow Online’s article contextualises, annual reviews ensure relevance; Brent’s omission violated this. Nationally, EHCP delays plague councils, with backlogs soaring post-pandemic.
This case exemplifies broader systemic strains, where vulnerable pupils suffer from resource shortages.
Who Is Affected by Brent Council’s Educational Failings?
Primarily Y, whose development stalled without therapies. Mr X sacrificed personal independence, returning home to prevent institutionalisation.
Parents bore emotional and logistical loads, termed “avoidable distress” by the LGO. As Harrow Online notes from the report, the family’s complaint centred on holistic harm.
Indirectly, it spotlights countless families facing similar voids in special education.
Why Was the Remedy Set at the Highest Tariff Level?
LGO tariffs scale with impact. Standard lost provision merits £900-£2,400 per term; this hit the top due to prolonged absence (four terms) and family strain.
The LGO report, via Harrow Online, specified £9,600 for Y’s benefit, compensating regression and care burdens. It exceeds basics to reflect “pressures placed on the family”.
What Service Improvements Has Brent Council Implemented?
Brent Council claims unspecified “service improvements” post-ruling. Harrow Online attributes this directly to council statements: aimed at preventing recurrence in EHCP delivery.
Potential measures include better therapy contracting, review scheduling, and family liaison, though unconfirmed. The council tags its EHCP pages, signalling transparency efforts.
How Does This Case Reflect Wider Issues in UK Special Education?
This incident mirrors national trends: EHCP complaints to the LGO surged 20% yearly, per recent data. North London councils like Brent grapple with funding shortfalls amid autism diagnoses rising 25% since 2019.
Harrow Online’s coverage ties it to regional context, where Brent’s population growth strains services. Advocacy groups call for central funding boosts.
Families increasingly resort to tribunals, with 97% EHCP appeals succeeding last year. Y’s case underscores urgency for systemic reform.
What Can Families Do If Facing Similar Council Failings?
Complain via council stages, then escalate to the LGO. Judicial review or tribunals offer routes for EHCP disputes.
As advised in Harrow Online’s report on remedies, document impacts meticulously. Groups like IPSEA provide free legal guidance.
Early intervention prevents regressions like Y’s.
When Did the Failings Occur and What Was the Timeline?
Issues spanned September 2023 to December 2024 – precisely four terms. EHCP dated 2022; complaint followed non-delivery.
LGO probed, ruled, and enforced remedy promptly. Payment followed acceptance.
