Key Points
- A Lambeth mother was awarded £7,000 after her son missed months of occupational therapy (OT) as part of his legally binding Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP).
- The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) found Lambeth Council at fault for failing to provide the required OT from December 2023 to February 2025.
- The council also agreed to pay an additional £150 in recognition of the mother’s time and trouble making the complaint.
- Lambeth Council accepted the LGSCO findings and apologised for failing to deliver parts of the EHCP.
- Mrs X’s son, Y, stopped attending school in late 2021, transitioned to home tuition, and underwent a tribunal in December 2023 which amended his EHCP to include OT provision.
- Despite tribunal orders, the council delayed OT and failed to secure Y a suitable school placement, offering home tuition instead.
- The council claimed to have consulted several schools and arranged additional support including speech and language therapy.
- Mrs X escalated her complaints due to lack of action, citing negative impacts on her son’s mental health and her own distress.
- Lambeth Council committed to delivering full OT hours immediately and promised improvements in complaint handling procedures.
What happened with the Lambeth mother and her son’s occupational therapy?
As reported by Mihir Bose of MyLondon, a Lambeth mother, referred to as Mrs X in official reports, recently received a £7,000 award after her son, known as Y for privacy, missed out on months of vital occupational therapy as part of his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). This EHCP is a legally binding document that stipulates the required educational, health, and social care interventions for children with special educational needs.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) investigated Mrs X’s complaint against Lambeth Council, ultimately deciding that the council had failed to act according to the tribunal’s instructions made on 4 December 2023. The tribunal had ordered that Y’s EHCP be amended to include prompt access to occupational therapy; however, the council did not fulfil this obligation.
Why did Mrs X complain to the council and escalate to the Ombudsman?
Mrs X initially complained that Lambeth Council did not follow its own complaints procedures or the tribunal’s orders. According to her statements cited by the Ombudsman, the council’s inaction had a detrimental effect on her son’s mental health and caused considerable avoidable distress for her.
Her son had ceased attending school in late 2021 and moved to home tuition early in 2022. The EHCP was reviewed mid-2022, identifying a school for Y to attend, but Mrs X appealed to a tribunal for further amendments to the plan.
The tribunal ruling mandated amendments to Y’s EHCP, including immediate access to occupational therapy, with an option to arrange private therapy in case of waiting list delays. Despite this, Lambeth Council delayed implementing these provisions and did not ensure Y’s attendance at a school setting.
How did Lambeth Council respond to the tribunal’s orders and Mrs X’s complaints?
In January 2024, Lambeth Council issued an amended EHCP naming home tuition for Y, but Mrs X did not receive a copy. A further amended EHCP issued in February 2024 defined special educational provision, including occupational therapy, and specified ‘education otherwise than at school’ as the educational setting.
Between February and April 2024, the council consulted several schools about placing Y, but none offered him a place. Mrs X reiterated her concerns in May 2024, stating the council had not taken steps mandated by the tribunal and had not contacted her regarding Y’s education arrangements.
The council later responded in June 2024 saying it had consulted multiple schools, kept Mrs X and her advocate informed, but was still unable to find a suitable placement. Lambeth said it had arranged a comprehensive support package for Y, including tuition, speech and language therapy, and short break services. The council also indicated willingness to discuss an outreach programme, which Mrs X favoured, citing concerns about Y’s wellbeing if he returned to a school environment.
What did the Ombudsman find about the council’s conduct?
The Ombudsman’s investigation concluded the council was at fault for failing to provide the occupational therapy under the tribunal order dated 4 December 2023. The key finding noted:
“The tribunal order dated December 4, 2023 is clear regarding the council’s requirement to make occupational therapy provision available to Y without delay. The council’s failure to provide this provision, despite its assurances that it would take steps to start delivery of this provision as a matter of urgency, is fault.”
In response, the LGSCO ordered Lambeth Council to pay Mrs X £7,000 for the distress caused and the missed therapy between December 2023 and February 2025. An additional £150 was awarded for the time and trouble Mrs X faced raising these issues.
How did Lambeth Council react to the Ombudsman’s findings?
A spokesperson for Lambeth Council told MyLondon:
“Lambeth is committed to providing the best service possible for all our residents – and, whenever problems arise, we work hard to resolve these quickly and fairly. We are now commissioning the occupational therapy provision as outlined in the EHC plan ensuring that the full allocated hours are delivered without further delay.”
The spokesperson further added:
“We are determined to learn from this case and improve the service we provide to all residents in the future. We are reinforcing with all relevant staff the importance of following the council’s complaints procedures, to ensure that concerns such as these are handled promptly, professionally, and with the seriousness they deserve.”
What does this case reveal about EHCP provision and council responsibilities?
This case highlights the challenges families face when councils do not adhere to legally binding EHCPs, especially regarding time-sensitive health interventions like occupational therapy. The tribunal process, designed to protect children’s rights to appropriate support, was not sufficient alone to compel timely action without further complaints and Ombudsman involvement.
Mrs X’s persistence in escalating her concerns underscores the emotional and practical toll on families navigating the special education system. The council’s failure to secure a school placement and deliver mandated therapy raised concerns about systemic delays and the necessity for better oversight and responsiveness.
Are there similar recent cases involving EHCP disputes?
This incident follows other reported cases within London where parents have successfully challenged local authorities for failing to implement EHCP provisions. For instance, as covered by MyLondon in April 2024, an East London mother was awarded £25,000 after delays and omissions in her son’s EHCP services caused significant harm.
Such cases reflect ongoing tensions between councils’ resource limitations and their legal duties to meet the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities.
What can affected families learn from this Ombudsman decision?
Families with children on EHCPs can see this ruling as an example of how advocacy, appeals, and complaints can lead to redress when councils fail to meet their obligations. It also illustrates the importance of detailed documentation and persistent follow-up to ensure children receive the education and health support to which they are entitled.
The Ombudsman’s willingness to make financial awards also signals that councils can be held financially accountable for delays and poor service impacting vulnerable children.
How might Lambeth Council improve future EHCP services?
Lambeth Council’s commitment to commission occupational therapy provision promptly and reinforce complaint handling procedures signals a proactive approach. Staff training on the legal importance of EHCP compliance and clearer communication protocols with families could reduce repeat disputes.
Developing alternative education provisions such as outreach programmes may also better address children’s individual needs when school placements are unsuitable or unavailable.
