Lewisham Council Ordered to Pay £750 Over Education Plan Failure
A Lewisham resident has been awarded £500 in compensation after the local authority failed to properly plan for the ending of his Education, Health and Care Plan when he turned 25 years old. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman ruled that Lewisham Council did not clearly explain what would happen when his EHCP was due to end halfway through completing a two-year college course.
Course Disruption and Avoidable Distress
The resident, identified only as Mr Y in the official report, was unable to complete his college course due to the council's planning failure, which caused what the ombudsman described as "avoidable" distress and uncertainty. His sister, referred to as Miss X, received an additional £250 compensation for the frustration and uncertainty she experienced while dealing with the council regarding her brother's situation.
Mr Y lives with a learning disability and physical health condition. His EHCP included comprehensive support measures such as assistance with initiating conversations, a modified learning environment, physiotherapy sessions, and encouragement to engage in social activities and exercise outside of school hours.
Missed Meetings and Communication Breakdown
The problems began in May 2024 when the mainstream college Mr Y attended arranged an annual review meeting on behalf of the council. Despite this arrangement, council representatives failed to attend the crucial meeting. The gathering noted there was a progression route available for a further course at the college, but because Mr Y was turning 25 the following academic year—coinciding with his EHCP ending—the council needed to confirm what would happen next.
Mr Y had expressed clear interest in pursuing the next level course, prompting his sister to formally complain to the council. She specifically requested that her brother receive support at college for another year after reaching age 25 and asked for his EHCP to be extended accordingly.
"The council had not supported her brother and had not turned up to the last two annual review meetings," Miss X reported to investigators.
Council Response and Legislative Limitations
When the council eventually responded, officials explained that a caseworker had been scheduled to attend the review meeting, but the date was rearranged at Miss X's request, making attendance impossible. The council acknowledged understanding Mr Y's desire to progress to the next level course and stated that his plan would remain in place until the end of the academic year to allow course completion.
However, council representatives emphasized they could not maintain the EHCP beyond July 2025 in accordance with current legislation. When Miss X contacted Mr Y's caseworker to inquire about the two-year course duration, she received a vague response indicating the matter would be "looked at by senior management."
Caseworker Changes and Further Complications
During the next annual review meeting preparation, Miss X requested confirmation that Mr Y's caseworker would attend, only to discover that a different caseworker had been assigned without her knowledge. The council explained it lacks the capacity to notify families when caseworkers change, though it had updated the college, which subsequently invited the correct representative to Mr Y's annual review.
The May 2025 annual review meeting resulted in an agreement that Mr Y would receive support through careers advice, available adult services, and disabled student's allowance. Following this meeting, which Mr Y's new caseworker attended, the council formally notified him that his EHCP would cease because he had turned 25.
Educational Disruption and Family Burden
Mr Y stopped attending college in July 2025 when his plan ended. His sister reported that he is now enrolled at an adult college, but this arrangement was left for their mother to organize independently. The council maintained that the family had decided not to pursue contact with adult services and pointed to information provided about post-college activities as Mr Y approached age 25.
The college stated it had offered information, signposting toward various options, and provided careers guidance in late 2024 and early 2025. Despite these claims, Miss X remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
Ombudsman's Critical Findings
The watchdog determined the council was at fault for failing to clearly describe the consequences of Mr Y attending a two-year college course when his EHCP was scheduled to end at age 25. Investigators noted that Miss X specifically asked about the second year implications, but the council failed to provide adequate answers, including in its formal stage one complaint response.
The ombudsman stated: "The guidance clearly sets out the council should use the review prior to ceasing the EHCP to agree the support and specific steps needed to help the young person to engage with services and provision they would be accessing once they have left education. There is no evidence the council did this or assured itself that Mr Y was receiving appropriate support for when he left college."
Miss X emphasized that if she had known at the course's beginning that there was no possibility of Mr Y remaining at college for the second year, she could have prepared him in advance and explored alternative options earlier.
Council Apology and Learning Commitment
A Lewisham Council spokesperson confirmed they agreed and accepted the ombudsman's decision, recognizing that the local authority's performance in this case was unacceptable. The spokesperson added: "We would like to apologise to both parties for the distress caused and assure them that we will learn from this outcome."
The ombudsman did find the council not at fault regarding the caseworker change notification, accepting the explanation about capacity limitations. However, the overall ruling highlights significant failures in transition planning for vulnerable residents moving from education to adult services.
