An autistic boy was left "withdrawn" after local authority failures meant him missing four months of school. The "bright pupil" missed being in education and the interaction with his peers after being left out of education for weeks.
Now Salford City Council has paid the boy's mother more than £3,000 after she took legal action against it, reports the Manchester Evening News. She was awarded compensation by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, which ruled there was 'delay and poor communication' by the cauthority over the issuing of the child's education and health care plan (EHCP).
It also found there was also a failure by the council under the terms of the Children and Families Act 2014 to provide alternative education for the boy once the authority was aware that he had been out of school for 15 days. In a report the Ombudsman said that the boy, named as 'B', was diagnosed with autism in 2018.
The youngster experiences extreme agitation in noisy and busy environments. His mother, 'Mrs X', said that B stopped attending School 'C' in early December 2020 because of his medical needs and inability to cope at school.
The council was asked for a special educational needs (SEN) assessment in late December 2020 - when the authority became aware of B's non-attendance at school. Salford City Council agreed to the assessment and in May 2021 it issued a draft EHC plan, followed by a second one in June 2021.
The council claimed Mrs X was 'slow to respond to the draft, or to name her preferred school and this caused some delay in the process'. However, Mrs X said she returned hers and her son's comments on the day she received the first draft.
"Mrs X says the council agreed to specialist provision and she visited various specialist schools," the report said. Mrs X says the council issued a second draft and she responded promptly, naming a particular school as her preferred choice. Mrs X had to approach a solicitor because of the delay in issuing a final EHC plan.
"The solicitor sent a pre-action protocol letter, threatening judicial review. Three days later, Mrs X says the council issued a final EHC plan.
"She paid £1,500 legal costs. The council issued a final EHC plan on July 30 2021, naming School C."
Mrs X did not accept that this was a suitable placement and she exercised her right of appeal to a Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Tribunal, the report said. "The council accepts that it breached the timescale of 20 weeks to finalise the EHC plan and that this delayed Mrs X's right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal," it continued.
"The council has already apologised to Mrs X for this and agrees in principle to make a symbolic payment to recognise the avoidable distress and lost opportunity to appeal sooner. It also accepted in its complaint response of July 2021 that its communication with Mrs X was poor.
"My view is that the delay and poor communication by the council amounts to fault. This caused avoidable frustration and this meant Mrs X's appeal to the SEND Tribunal has been slightly delayed.
"As Mrs X won her appeal, it might have been possible for B to attend his specialist school sooner." Meanwhile, Mrs X contended that she tried hard to obtain alternative provision because knew that the longer B was out of school, the more difficult it would be for him to return.
He had no interaction with his peers and he became 'very withdrawn', the report said. "Mrs X says B is a bright pupil and missed being in education," it went on. "Mrs X says that she had to approach a solicitor because the council was not providing alternative education for B, despite her request for this.
"The council says that it began to explore alternative provision - although it does not say when - as a way of supporting transition back into B's placement in School C. So, the exploring of alternative provision was to enhance the placement at School C rather than to replace it.
"The council considered it was not required to provide alternative education from March 2021. The council believed that B's support needs could be met in a mainstream school with a detailed EHC plan and additional resources attached to it.
"As from the end of July 2021, the council accepts it had a duty to provide what was detailed in B's final EHC plan. Most of the provision in the EHC plan relied on specialist input from school staff."
The Ombudsman said that in September 2021, the council commissioned two hours per day alternative provision for B from an approved provider (provider D). The council said it was not in B's interests to have full-time education, and his attendance up to the October 2021 half-term was only 56 per cent.
"After the half-term his attendance was less," the report said. "Mrs X told the council that B's anxiety was preventing him from attending. In addition, providers of alternative education were experiencing staff absences due to Covid-19 at this time.
"Mrs X says the provider D was not an autism specialist unit, so did not have the expertise to deal with B. It offered only two hours of interaction each day and B was very keen to have contact with his peers."
In December 2021, the family moved to another council area. Salford passed responsibility to the new authority, including the SEND appeal. In February/March 2022, B started at a specialist school for autistic children and Mrs X said 'he is doing well'.
The Ombudsman ordered Salford council to apologise and make a 'symbolic payment' of £350 to Mrs X for the injustice caused by the faults identified in the EHCP delay. The council was further ordered to pay Mrs X £2,400 for B's four months missed education to be used for his educational benefit and a further £300 'symbolic payment'.
The Ombudsman added: "The council's policy does not set out a timeframe by which it expects Children and Families Act decisions to be made. This means that cases of children being out of education can easily drift.
"The council will consider adding a timetable to its policy for these decisions to be made."
