Unitary left armed forces child without specialist education support for five months, Ombudsman finds

The family behind the complaint moved to Shropshire in February 2025 as part of a military posting.

According to the Ombudsman's report, the council had been informed of the move two months in advance, because the child (Y) had an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan.

Despite this, the council failed to arrange a school placement or put interim education in place when the family arrived.

After the limited online schooling arranged by the previous council ended in April 2025, the child had no education at all for several months at the start of his GCSE preparation course.

Y’s mother, Mrs X, made repeated attempts to contact the council, to which its responses were described by the Ombudsman as "woefully inadequate".

When she formally complained, the council took four months to provide a final response, offered no adequate remedy, and made no reference to the Armed Forces Covenant, the Ombudsman found.

The Armed Forces Covenant places a legal duty on councils to ensure military families face no disadvantage in the provision of public services.

The SEND Code of Practice requires that transitions are well managed for service children with special educational needs, and that councils work proactively to ensure provision is in place from the moment a child arrives.

The Ombudsman report noted that Shropshire has around six military bases within its boundaries.

The council's own Armed Forces Covenant Action Plan 2025–29 acknowledges “outstanding challenges around SEN provision for service children”, which the Ombudsman said made the failure to act in the case “all the more concerning”.

To remedy the injustice caused, Shropshire Council was recommended to:

• apologise and pay the mother £3,000 to reflect the missed provision;
• review its Armed Forces Covenant Action Plan and implement changes to SEND procedures to ensure service children with SEND do not experience gaps in their education when moving into Shropshire.

A Shropshire Council spokesperson said: “We acknowledge the Ombudsman’s findings, accept the recommendations in the report and apologise to Mrs X and Y. The council could and should have done more to ensure that Y received the educational provision in his Education, Health and Care Plan between February and July 2025.

“The Ombudsman’s report notes that the council has already acted to improve practice in this area. However, as the report recommends, we will be writing to Mrs X and Y to formally apologise, and making a payment to Mrs X to reflect Y’s missed special educational provision.

“We are also reviewing our Armed Forces Covenant Action Plan to ensure that we implement changes to Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) procedures, so service children with SEND do not have any gaps in their education when they move into Shropshire.

“The Ombudsman’s report and its findings will also shortly be considered by Cabinet.”

The Shropshire spokesperson added: “As a signatory to the Armed Forces Covenant we are committed to ensuring that those who serve or have served in the armed forces, and their families, are treated fairly – and to supporting children and young people from service families. This week we are marking Armed Forces Week by showing our support and appreciation for the county’s armed forces personnel and their families.

“We are determined that this case will not be repeated, and have already taken action. As the report acknowledges, the council has recently introduced a communication protocol for the EHC team, and we have recently delivered training on the Armed Forces Covenant to key staff.”

In January this year, the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal brought by Hampshire County Council in a case concerning the council’s decision to cease to maintain an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for a disabled child when the family temporarily relocated abroad due to the father’s service in the Royal Navy.

In Hampshire County Council v GC & Anor [2026] EWCA Civ 20, the Court of Appeal found that the Upper Tribunal was right to hold that the child remained “ordinarily resident” in Hampshire, and that the council could “quite properly have decided to maintain the EHCP without implementing its contents”, while the family was abroad.

The judge in the case observed that the use of the ordinary residence test would have been “consistent with public policy and in particular with the Armed Forces Covenant” to which the council had subscribed for some years.