The report claimed the mum was ‘physically and mentally exhausted’ following the lengthy dispute.
The report said that the mum’s adult son had been attending a residential college course since September 2020 as part of his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP), including support to develop his communication and independence skills.
He also received social care to help maintain his personal hygiene and receive speech and language therapy.
Bromley Council reportedly funded support through direct payments to the mum, named Mrs B in the report, during school holidays.
Mrs B asked the council to maintain her son’s EHCP in November 2022 to allow him to experience his final year at college.
However, the council wrote to the mum the next month, stating it was considering ending the EHCP at the end of the summer term in 2023.
The authority invited feedback from Mrs B at this time but she asked the council to consider allowing her son to attend college for a fourth year.
She was asked by the council at the end of January 2023 to confirm with the college that her son could attend for another year and to liaise with social care in case he had to leave the college that year.
The report said: “In March 2023, the college notified the council that it recommended Mr K stay for a fourth year and set out its reasoning in detail. The college chased the council for a response in April.
“Mrs B wrote to the council in April saying that she was getting anxious about her son’s future.”
The authority told the mum to await its decision on the care plan before arranging adult social care, but Mrs B continued to chase the council in May.
She claimed not knowing the council’s decision at this time was ‘extremely stressful’.
A care assessment was carried out for the son, named Mr K in the report, in June and the mum chased the council for a decision given her son only had three weeks of college left.
The son’s social worker then told Mrs B in July that the council had not approved a fourth year at college.
The authority did not send out a formal letter notifying the mum at this time so she was unable to appeal the decision.
Mrs B met with the council in August, during which the authority reportedly agreed to update Mr K’s care assessment and start a search for a supported living placement through its funding panel.
The council also mistakenly sent the mum a letter at this time, telling her that it was planning to cease her son’s EHCP.
This was reportedly sent in error and the authority claimed it should have sent the formal decision letter on ceasing the EHCP at this stage.
The council informed the college it had ceased the EHCP in August but did not formally tell Mrs B of this until September, when she decided to appeal the decision.
The mum claimed the council needed to maintain the EHCP while the appeal was pending.
However, the council claimed it had informed Mrs B twice about ending the plan before issuing a formal notice, implying it had given notice earlier than September and the plan would not be maintained as the appeal was made after it ended.
This was criticised by the ombudsman, who claimed that the council was nearly 36 weeks late in formally notifying the mum.
Bromley Council told Mrs B at this time that it would look for a supported living placement for her son, while she claimed that her son was becoming more confused and upset at this time.
Mrs B was told to contact the social worker again to arrange her son’s social care and claimed that the letters it sent her in August were formal notices that the EHCP would be ceasing.
The mum disputed this and made a complaint stating that she had been asking for a decision on the additional college year for nine months and for help in arranging social care as a contingency.
The council responded at the end of November and apologised for its delay and for not writing to the mum sooner to notify her on the EHCP ending.
Bromley Council sourced a day centre Mr K could attend two days a week, but it could not provide the tutoring set out in his EHCP.
The mum was sent a completed care assessment in October. Mr K was receiving no adult social care at this time, despite the authority making three referrals to community providers.
The council also stopped paying Mrs B direct payments to support Mr K’s care during school holidays at this time, despite alternative care not having been arranged. The mum was not given an update on these payments until January.
A supported living placement was proposed by the council in November but Mrs B claimed her son’s independence and physical health had been impacted by the lack of social care. Mr K was given interim support in December 2023 to access the community.
Mr K’s care package was still not arranged at this point so the mum arranged a weekly schedule of activities for her son across several community-based activity centres. She asked the council for assistance in funding this after she paid for a portion of the activities herself. The authority agreed the schedule could proceed but did not arrange any direct payments.
Bromley Council claimed it had to assess Mr K’s mental capacity in March 2024 to decide his care and direct payments.
This was completed the following month and Mr K was offered 48 nights of respite care per year through direct payments. He was assigned a personal assistant to take him to activities three days a week, while also spending two days at a day centre.
The ombudsman said in their report that the authority should have maintained the EHCP for Mr K while the appeal was pending. Bromley Council claimed the son was receiving his entitled educational provision through community activities at this time, but the ombudsman said this was not the appropriate provision that was set out in his plan.
The report said: “The council’s shortcomings caused significant distress, uncertainty, and frustration. Mr K was unable to properly transition from residential college to living at home. He was not able to say a proper goodbye to his college friends and Mrs B says her son began to lose the independence skills he had built up in college.”
It added: “It is very clear from Mrs B’s contact with the council that its failures were impacting on the family, including Mrs B’s ability to work. Mrs B described herself as physically and mentally exhausted by the mishandled process.”
The authority was told to apologise to Mrs B for its failings and pay the mum £6,400 for the distress and uncertainty it had caused as well as for the education and social care provision Mr K had missed.
It was also instructed to remind staff on the protocol surrounding appeals and the legal time scales around decisions.
A Bromley Council spokesperson told the Local Democracy Reporting Service: “Bromley Council cooperated fully with the Ombudsman’s investigation and agreed with the proposed remedial action, which has been fully implemented.”
They added: “The council is committed to providing every young adult with SEN in its borough with the best possible education but sometimes struggles when the resources available to the council, both from within and from outside agencies, are insufficient to provide the service we would wish to the ever-growing numbers of families seeking support.
“Virtually every other local authority across the country with responsibility for supporting children with SEND is in a similar position, as recognised by the Ombudsman’s own data and reports.”
