Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure he had the required level of support in place when his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan ended in July 2025. We found the Council failed to carry out a timely review despite advance notice the EHC Plan was ending, failed to complete an annual review in 2024, communicated poorly throughout the process, and incorrectly refused to escalate his complaint while the matter remained unresolved. These faults caused Mr X significant injustice through missed support, distress, uncertainty, avoidable reliance on family members, and time and trouble pursuing the Council for updates and resolution. The Council has agreed to apologise, and make a payment to Mr X.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to ensure he had the required level of support in place when his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan came to an end in July 2025.
2. Mr X says without the correct level of support, he has required additional help from his parents.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

EHC Plan 

8. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 

Adult social care assessment

9. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.
10. Councils must carry out assessments over a suitable and reasonable timescale considering the urgency of needs and any variation in those needs. Councils should tell people when their assessment will take place and keep them informed throughout the assessment.

Reviews

11. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months. Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.

Direct payments

12. Direct payments are monetary payments made to individuals who ask for them to meet some or all of their eligible care and support needs. They enable people to arrange their own care and support to meet those needs. The council must ensure people have relevant and timely information about direct payments so they can decide whether to request them. If they do so, the council should support them to use and manage the payment properly.

What happened

13. Mr X was already known to the Council’s adult social care service. In 2023, after a needs assessment, the Council provided a direct payment to fund a personal assistant for 9 hours per week. Mr X also had an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
14. In April 2025, the worker responsible for Mr X’s EHC Plan asked adult social care to review his care and support arrangements because the EHC Plan was due to end shortly.
15. In May, Mr X complained that the referral had not been acknowledged and no action had been taken.
16. Later in May, the Council confirmed it had received the referral and that it had been given high priority. It accepted that it should have sent Mr X information about the referral process and that it had failed to carry out his annual adult social care review in 2024. The Council apologised and said a worker would be allocated and a review arranged.
17. A review was arranged for July.
18. Before the review could take place, the allocated worker unexpectedly went off sick. The review was cancelled and the Council said it would be rearranged when the worker returned.
19. Mr X’s EHC Plan ended later that month.
20. In August, Mr X escalated his complaint, explaining that he had still not been contacted to rearrange the cancelled review.
21. Later in August, the Council said the delay had arisen because of difficulties arranging a meeting and confirmed a new review date had been set for early September.
22. The review visit took place in September.
23. Three weeks later, Mr X sent the social worker the requested information and asked for an update.
24. In October, the social worker said they were again off sick and would prioritise completing the assessment on their return.
25. Later in October, Mr X made a further complaint because he had not received a copy of the assessment or support plan and the increased support had not begun.
26. In November, the Council allocated a new social worker to complete the assessment and support plan.
27. The Council responded to the October complaint. It apologised for the delays, confirmed that a new worker had been allocated to complete a fresh assessment and support plan, and acknowledged that its communication and handling of the matter had been unacceptable.
28. Mr X asked for the complaint to be escalated. He said he was unhappy that a new assessment was being undertaken, that the new worker had telephoned him despite a note on his records asking staff not to call him, and that he wanted clear timescales for the assessment and support plan. He explained that the ongoing uncertainty was causing him anxiety.
29. The Council refused to escalate the complaint, saying that doing so would not change the outcome. Instead, it asked him to allow the new worker sufficient time to review his case and respond appropriately. It advised Mr X to contact it again if no meaningful progress had been made after one month.
30. Later in November, the new social worker completed the written assessment based on the previous worker’s work.
31. In December, the Council approved an increase in support to 32 hours of personal assistant support per week and four weeks of respite per year.
32. Mr X again asked for his complaint to be escalated, but the Council declined, saying the complaint had been resolved and closed.
33. Later in December, Mr X began receiving the increased direct payment.

My findings

Delay in reviewing and increasing support

34. The Council was already providing adult social care support to Mr X and had been alerted in April that his EHC Plan was ending. This gave the Council sufficient opportunity to review his needs and put appropriate support in place before the educational provision ended.
35. The Council also failed to carry out an annual review of Mr X’s care and support arrangements in 2024. The Council acknowledged this in its complaint response. Given the requirement under the Care Act 2014 and statutory guidance to keep care and support plans under review, this was fault.
36. Instead, it took approximately eight months from the April referral to the implementation of the increased direct payment in December. During that period, the Council delayed completing the review, finalising the support plan, agreeing funding, and arranging the increased support. This was fault.
37. The delay caused a significant injustice. Mr X did not receive the level of support that was ultimately assessed as necessary and instead relied on additional help from his family. He also had to spend considerable time pursuing updates from the Council.
38. I have seen no evidence that Mr X’s needs materially changed between April (when the referral was made), September (when the assessment was completed) and December (when funding was approved and implemented). On the balance of probabilities, had the Council completed the review without delay, Mr X would have been receiving the increased level of support from around September 2025, after the summer holiday period, approximately three months earlier than he did.

Communication and case management

39. The Council’s communication with Mr X throughout the process was poor. It failed to acknowledge the referral appropriately, failed to provide the information it said should have been sent, did not keep Mr X adequately updated about progress, and repeatedly left him having to contact the Council for updates.
40. The Council acknowledged that its communication had been unacceptable. I have seen evidence that Mr X had to make repeated enquiries and complaints to obtain information about the progress of his review, assessment and support plan. This poor communication and case management was fault.
41. The faults caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and frustration at a time when he was trying to understand what support would be available to him when his EHC Plan ended. They also resulted in additional time and trouble pursuing the Council for updates.

Complaint handling

42. The Council twice refused to escalate Mr X’s complaint. Initially it asked Mr X to give the worker a month to review and respond to the matter and later stated that the matter had been resolved. However, in November, the increased support had not yet been implemented, and Mr X had raised additional concerns, including communication issues, the conduct of the reassessment process and uncertainty about timescales. The matter had therefore not been resolved.
43. The Council failed to properly consider whether the complaint should be escalated in line with its complaints process. This was fault.
44. This fault represented a missed opportunity for the Council to address Mr X’s concerns and resolve matters sooner. It also caused him additional time and trouble because he had to continue pursuing the Council for answers and progress updates.

Back to top

Action

45. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
• Pay Mr X a total of £1,100, comprising:
1. £1,000 to recognise the distress, uncertainty, and loss of support caused by the delay; and
2. £100 to recognise the time a trouble caused by the Council’s failure to properly escalate and address his complaint.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman