The High Court has handed down a judgement in the case of an autistic young man who had his educational care plan withdrawn by Oldham Council.

Philip Milburn has an Educational, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) as a result of his autism, but in September 2018, the council notified him the plan would be withdrawn.

Philip, who was 19 at the time, and his mother Zoe Thompson, lodged an appeal through the Specialist Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SENDIST), which was successful.

However, the pair made a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO), raising concerns over the actions of Oldham Council during the appeal.

They complained that the council had claimed to get Philip's views, which he stated did not happen, adding that when they did obtain his views, they ignored them.

There was also a complaint over the council's general conduct during the tribunal, including failing to comply with orders or produce adequate documentation, suggesting Zoe was preventing Philip from expressing his views and seeking to delay proceedings.

The LGO initially refused to investigate, but after correspondence with Philip's lawyers at Irwin Mitchell, it agreed to reopen some parts of the investigation but maintained a full investigation was outside of its jurisdiction.

Philip decided to make an application under judicial review for the court to scrutinise the LGO's decision to not carry out a full investigation.

Following a hearing in May, the judgement was passed on Wednesday, July 6, which ruled the LGO was wrong to decide that it could not investigate the complaint that the council had made multiple claims it sought his views when it had not.

However, the court said the LGO did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaint that the council failed to obtain his views and when they did, failed to take these into account.

It was also concluded the LGO did not have jurisdiction over the council's conduct during proceedings, however, it said if the council's alleged actions were true, the behaviour was "reprehensible".

The court went on to say: "The council's failure to seek and consider Mr Milburn’s views was egregious, having regard to the Councils’ statutory obligation to consider them, and particularly deplorable in light of Mr Milburn’s vulnerability."

Reacting to the ruling, Zoe said: "While we were grateful that Philip’s EHCP was maintained, the way we were treated throughout the appeal was terrible. 

"The council has acted unreasonably throughout the whole process, to the point where Philip has been extremely distressed."

She added they were"disappointed" that not all their legal arguments were successful and they were taking legal advice over the next steps.

In a statement, Cllr Mohon Ali, Cabinet member for education and skills, said they understood it was a difficult process for Zoe and Philip and said they have been issued an apology.

He said: "Since the issue was raised, the service is in a much better place. More staff have been recruited and trained, an extensive review of the process has been undertaken and significant improvements have been made, which have been recognised by the Department of Education."

He added the council acknowledged the High Court ruling on the role of the LGO in investigating complaints relating to planning and provision for young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. 

A spokesperson for the LGO said: "The High Court has now provided clarity on a complicated area of law and we will reflect on the judgment and how it impacts on our casework in this area.

"Unfortunately, there are some areas the law does not allow us to investigate and, as the judge in this case has acknowledged, how a council acts during an ongoing tribunal appeal is one of these."