A Lewisham resident has been awarded £500 in compensation after the council failed to properly plan for the ending of his Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) when he turned 25.
The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) said Lewisham Council did not clearly explain what would happen to him when his EHCP was due to end halfway through completing a two-year college course.
The resident, known in a report only as Mr Y, was unable to complete the course which caused “avoidable” distress and uncertainty. His sister, Miss X, was awarded an additional £250 for the uncertainty and frustration she experienced when interacting with the council.
A Lewisham Council spokesperson said they agreed and accepted the decision by LGSCO, which recognised the local authority’s performance in this case was not acceptable.
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.”
Mr Y has a physical health condition and lives with a learning disability. His EHCP included support with initiating conversations, a modified learning environment as well as physiotherapy and encouragement to actively engage in social activities and exercise outside of school.
In May 2024, the mainstream college he attended arranged an annual review meeting on behalf of the council. However, the council did not attend.
The meeting noted there was a progression route at college for a further course, but because he was turning 25 the next academic year which coincided with his EHCP ending, the council would have to confirm what would happen next.
Mr Y had also expressed interest in wishing to pursue the next level course. His sister went on to complain to the council, and asked for her brother to be supported at college for another year after he reached 25 and requested for his EHCP to be extended for another year.
She said the council had not supported her brother and had not turned up to the last two annual review meetings.
When the council responded, it said there was a caseworker who was due to attend the review, but the date was rearranged at Miss X’s request and so they could no longer attend and sent their apologies. The council said it understood Mr Y wanted to progress to the next level course and as he turned 25 that year, his plan would stay in place until the end of the academic year so he could attend the course and complete his pathway.
However, the council said it could not keep the EHCP beyond July 2025 in line with current legislation. Miss X contacted Mr Y’s case worker and asked what would happen as Mr Y’s course was a two-year course. The case worker responded and said it was something “that will be looked at by senior management”.
During the next annual review meeting of Mr Y, his sister asked for confirmation that his case worker would attend. However she was told that another case worker would be attending as the first case worker was no longer assigned to Mr Y. However, Miss X was unhappy she was not made aware of the change.
During the annual review meeting, which was held in May 2025, it was agreed that Mr Y would be supported with careers advice, available adult services and disabled student’s allowance.
Following the meeting, which Mr Y’s new caseworker attended, the council wrote to him to let him know it would be ceasing his EHCP because he had turned 25. Mr Y stopped attending the college in July 2025 as his plan had ended. Miss X says Mr Y is now enrolled at an adult college, but this was left for his mother to organise.
According to the council, the family had decided not to pursue contact with adult services. The council provided information which said it had advised Mr Y about post-college activity as he was turning 25. The college said it had provided information and signposted him towards a broad range of options and offered careers guidance in late 2024 and early 2025 however Miss X remained unhappy and complained to the LGSCO.
Miss X said if she had known at the start of the course that there was no possibility of Mr Y remaining at the college for the second year she could have prepared him for this in advance and started to explore other options. The LGSCO ruled the council was at fault for failing to clearly describe what the consequences of Mr Y attending the two-year college course when his EHCP was due to end at age 25.
The watchdog said: “Miss X specifically asked what would happen regarding the second year and the council failed to answer her. The council’s stage one complaint response also did not address this. This was fault.”
The watchdog went on to say: “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.”
However, the LGSCO found the council was not at fault when it didn’t inform the family Mr Y’s case worker had changed. The council said it does not have capacity to tell family when a person’s case worker changes and explained it had updated the college and the college invited the correct case worker to Mr Y’s annual review.
