MUM OF AUTISTIC BOY GETS £1,100 AND AN APOLOGY FROM SALFORD CITY COUNCIL

The mum of an autistic boy with an anxiety disorder has received an apology and £1,100 in compensation from Salford city council for its failure to provide alternative provision for his education while not attending school for eight weeks.

A report by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has now rapped the authority on the knuckles. 

Councils have a legal duty to make arrangements for the ‘suitable education’ of children who, because of illness or other reasons, cannot go to school.

‘Miss X’ complained that her son ‘Y’ missed out on his education between January and March 2022, a period of eight weeks, taking into account the half-term break.

In January 2021, the council issued Y’s education, health care plan (EHCP) in line with an education tribunal order. Named in Y’s EHCP was School A, which Y was registered in the same month.

From that time to September 2021, discussions were held between Miss X and the council about provision. 

The council secured and arranged the provision as set out in Y’s EHCP. The report said:

Quote

 

“It is noted that it was accepted by all parties that the transition to school attendance would be a lengthy process for Y.”

It said that from September 2021 to December 2021, ‘collaborative conversations’ were held between Miss X and the council for reasonable adjustments to provision to support Y to access learning. 

The report continued: “I note having discussed the case with Miss X, that her complaint relates to an absence of alternative provision provided between the period January 2022 to March 2022.”

 

In December 2021, a review of Y’s EHCP took place and in January 2022, the council issued its decision letter.

Prior to December 2021, Y attended introductory sessions via a mentoring programme offering emotional support and guidance for children. In December 2021, the council discussed with School A about funding two hours per week via the school placement funding provided by it.

In January 2022, Miss X wrote to the council saying that whilst the mentoring sessions were progressing well, she was unhappy with a lack of sufficient alternative provision in place whilst Y was capable of more and not attending School A.

The report went on:

Quote

 

“During the period from January 2022 to March 2022, Y was not attending School A, and the only evidence I have seen of education/alternative provision is that provided by the mentoring programme that Y attended. 

“The council has acknowledged that Y was not attending School A from January 2022 to March 2022.

“Although Miss X reported that Y was enjoying and engaging in the mentoring sessions, this was not sufficient to meet the needs of Y as per his EHCP.

“I have not seen any evidence of additional alternative provision that was provided to Y. The council has acknowledged that it should have provided more suitable education for Y than was offered and delivered by School A. The absence of sufficient alternative provision is fault, and this caused an injustice to Y.”

 

The Ombudsman ordered the council to pay Miss Y £1,100 ‘to be used for the benefit of Y’.

It must also provide a written apology to Miss X, acknowledging the impact its action had on Y.

The report concluded:

Quote

 

“The council will also explain what it will do to prevent similar occurrences detailed in this complaint. 

“The Ombudsman would like to see evidence of service improvement which specifically addresses occurrences where children are without sufficient educational provision.”

 

A Salford city council spokesperson said:

Quote

 

“We are unable to comment on individual cases, but the council can confirm a new Access to Education Policy and protocol came into force in September 2022.

“We accept the Ombudsman’s final decision and will follow the agreed action.”