Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her child Z’s educational and special educational needs provision. We have found fault, causing injustice, by the Council with its failures to: properly consider Mrs Y’s transport request in 2024; and complete the 2024 annual review within the statutory timescale. We have not found fault with the educational provision made for Z from 2024. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice by apologising and making a payment to recognise the upset caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the way the Council dealt with her child, Z’s educational and special educational needs provision. She says the Council failed to:

a) provide Z with a suitable education and their special educational needs provision after they were excluded from school in January 2023;

b) arrange and fund transport to their placement in September 2024; and

c) complete the November 2024 annual review of their Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales.

2. Mrs Y says, because of the Council’s failings, Z missed out on their education, affecting their wellbeing and academic progress. The missed education is continuing to have an impact on Z’s college studies. The failure to arrange and fund transport caused uncertainty and upset about how Z could get to their placement. Mrs Y and the family were caused upset and worry about Z’s educational arrangements and difficulties and cost arranging their transport.
3. Mrs Y wants the Council to properly recognise and apologise for its failings and make appropriate redress for their impact on Z and the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
9. Mrs Y brought her complaint to us in May 2025. I have looked at what happened from January 2024 as an appropriate starting point for my investigation. But I have not looked at anything that happened before then.
10. This is because the Council responded in early 2024 to Mrs Y’s concerns about Z’s educational provision in 2023. If Mrs Y was unhappy with its response, my view is there is no good reason she could not have brought this part of her complaint to us sooner.
11. I have not investigated anything that happened after May 2025, which was not raised by Mrs Y with the Council before she brought her complaint to us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mrs Y 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

What should have happened

Education Health and Care Plan 

14. 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.
15. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section B: Special educational needs;
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person; and 
• Section I: The name and/or type of educational placement. 

Reviewing EHC Plans

16. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews.
17. Following the review meeting the council must issue a decision to either amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
18. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan:

• the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194);
• case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting; and
• case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.

Post-16: review, provision and naming placement deadline  

19. For young people moving from secondary school to a post-16 institution or apprenticeship, the council must review and amend their EHC Plan – including specifying the post-16 provision and naming the institution – by 31 March in the calendar year of the transfer.  

SEN Transport - nearest suitable school

20. If only one school is named in a young person’s EHC plan, then that is the school the council has determined is the nearest suitable school for the child. It is therefore the nearest ‘qualifying school’ for the child to attend for school transport consideration. This is because the council has not made arrangements for the child to attend a closer school. (S and another v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council [2012] EWCA Civ 346.)
21. Where the child is attending the ‘nearest suitable school’, they will qualify for free transport, provided any other relevant conditions are met.

Section 19 duty

22. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that the council must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child.
23. The alternative educational provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.

Looked after Child

24. A Looked after Child is any child subject to a care order or accommodated away from their family by a local authority, on a voluntary basis, under section 20 of the Children Act 1989.

What happened

25. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.
26. Although I am not investigating events before January 2024, I have referred to these as context for the complaint.

Background

27. Z has special educational needs. Their first EHC Plan was issued in 2020, just before their move from primary to secondary school.
28. The Council decided, at the July 2021 and July 2022 annual reviews, to maintain Z’s EHC Plan without any amendments.

January 2023 to Easter 2023: Z’s permanent exclusion

29. In January 2023 Z’s school held an early annual review meeting at which it said it could not meet their needs. Z was then permanently excluded from the school.
30. The Council arranged a placement for Z with its commissioned provider of education for pupils excluded from school.
31. Z started at another school (school A) from Easter 2023.

September 2023 to December 2023: issues with school A

32. Mrs Y told the Council about Z’s difficulties with school A and that Z was clear they did not want to go back there in September.
33. The Council said it could not find a new placement for Z before the start of the new school year. But it could start consultations and in meantime they should continue with the proposed plan to re-integrate Z back into school A.
34. There were discussions about possible alternative provision for Z. The Council’s decision-making panel agreed Z should be provided with a package of education otherwise than at school.
35. Before this could be arranged, it was decided in December 2023, following significant issues with Z’s behaviour, they should be placed in the Council’s care as a Looked after Child.

January 2024 to June 2024: Z’s alternative provision

36. Z was still on school A’s roll. At the Personal Education Meeting held in January to support Z’s educational provision as a Looked after Child, school A agreed to arrange an alternative provision placement for Z with Provider B.
37. This placement continued until Z started a new alternative provision placement in June with Provider C.

February 2024: Mrs Y’s first complaint

38. In her complaint to the Council about Z’s education provision, Mrs Y said:

• Z had been out of full-time education for one year;
• she had been trying to get the Council and school A to arrange alternative provision for Z. There had not been any progress with this;
• Z now had good social worker support and positive action was being taken including provision with Provider B and 1:1 mentoring; and
• she wanted the Council to investigate its, and Z’s schools’, failures over the years regarding Z’s educational provision and say what it would do to partially redress the impact on Z.

39. The Council investigated the complaint. In its complaint response in March 2024, it said:

• Mrs Y would have to make any complaints about Z’s schools directly to the schools concerned;
• it had asked school A about alternative provision for Z in September 2023, while it began looking for other placements;
• school A said it wasn’t able to offer anything suitable for Z. The Council’s panel then considered Z’s case and agreed an education package should be arranged. It had begun discussing this with Mrs Y, but she had not taken this further; and
• a placement was arranged for Z with Provider B from January 2024. Provider B had confirmed they wanted to continue to support Z with mentor support to build up their attendance.

40. The Council said it hoped it had addressed the relevant points. Mrs Y could contact it for further information if she wished.

August 2024: Mrs Y’s transport request

41. Z’s care placement with the Council as a Looked after Child ended in August and they returned to live at the family home with Mrs Y.
42. School A agreed to keep Z on its roll, commission their continued placement with Provider C and manage their alternative provision arrangements.
43. Mrs Y asked the Council to arrange Z’s transport to Provider C.
44. On 27 September the Council told Mrs Y it had refused her transport request. Z was not eligible for travel assistance because they were not attending the school named in their EHC Plan (school A).
45. Following this, on 30 September, the Council raised questions internally about Mrs Y’s transport request. It said:

• Z’s EHC Plan named school A as their placement. The school had commissioned Z’s placement with Provider C;
• The Council’s travel assistance policy said:

“Children registered at one school may visit another school for integration purposes or to access an additional educational support package or placement provided by the school at which they are registered. Where this happens, the school is responsible for making the necessary transport arrangements”; and

• on this basis, school A was responsible for Z’s transport arrangements. The Council needed to have a conversation with the school to help it understand the position.

46. The Council says, after discussions with school A and senior management, it was agreed Provider C would arrange Z’s transport and the Council would meet the costs.

November 2024: annual review meeting

47. An annual review meeting for Z’s EHC Plan was held on 20 November. Z was due to transition to post-16 education in September 2025.
48. The Council issued its decision to amend Z’s Plan in February 2025. It issued the draft amended plan in May 2025.

May 2025: Mrs Y’s further complaints to the Council

49. Mrs Y complained to the Council about the delay completing the annual review process and raised further concerns about Z’s educational arrangements.
50. She also contacted us about her complaint.
51. The Council said, in its stage 1 complaint response, it:

• accepted the delay completing the annual review was unacceptable and well outside statutory timescales. It should have issued its decision to amend the EHC Plan in December 2024;
• accepted it had taken an unacceptably long time to put in place Z’s new placement with Provider D following the initial visit. This was due to various administrative difficulties between the Council and Provider D which had now been resolved;
• referred to the draft amended plan issued on 12 May. It asked Mrs Y to make any representations within 15 days of this date. It said it would finalise the Plan on 28 May; and
• referred to Mrs Y’s email of 19 May about Z’s transition to college. It said it had no information about whether Z wanted to attend college. If they did, Mrs Y should provide details and it would consult with possible providers.

52. The Council said it was sorry it had not processed Z’s annual review within statutory timescales and that it had taken some time to develop an appropriate education package for them.

August 2025: Council’s further complaint response

53. The Council issued a stage 1 response to other complaints Mrs Y had raised with it. In response to those issues considered as part of this complaint, it said:

1. failure to provide transport:

• school A was named in Z’s EHC Plan. The Council had no legal duty to provide Z with transport to any other placement;
• the decision not to provide transport was correct in terms of the law and its policy but it should have considered naming Provider C as Z’s placement in the EHC Plan;
• in any event, it agreed in December 2024 Provider C would arrange Z’s transport and the Council would fund this; and
• it could see the issue had a significant impact on Z and Mrs Y. It apologised for this.

2. provision could have been offered sooner:

• Z had been provided with alternative provision from January 2024, while still on the roll at school A, with:

Provider B: from about 19 February 2024 – attending 4 mornings a week by summer 2024;

Provider C: from 28 June 2024 to date;

Provider D: from 11 April 2025 to date.

• but it could see there had been unacceptable delays in progressing Z’s case and securing a suitable placement.

54. In its final (stage 2) response the Council said it:

a) had already upheld the complaint about its failure to meet statutory timescales at stage 1; and

b) had now investigated this further at stage 2;

• at stage 1, it said it would issue a final Plan by 28 May 2025. Instead, it offered to meet Mrs Y in June to discuss the Plan content;
• it was right to focus on reaching agreement with Mrs Y, but this meant it had not issued the final Plan in May as it said it would. It apologised for this; and
• consultation responses for Z’s placement were due. It anticipated issuing the final Plan during the week beginning 4 August;

55. The Council also said it:

• was reviewing its processes and arranging a training programme for its EHC Coordinators; and
• offered a symbolic payment of £900 for the impact on Z, and unnecessary distress and avoidable time and trouble caused to them and Mrs Y, because of the way it had managed Z’s case.

Z’s final amended EHC Plan

56. The Council issued Z’s final amended Plan on 6 August 2025 naming Provider D as their placement.
57. Z had started a course at College E in October 2025. The Council issued a further final amended Plan naming College E as Z’s placement in December 2025.

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

(a) Z’s educational provision from January 2024

58. For the reasons explained at paragraph 9, I have not considered Z’s educational provision before January 2024.
59. My understanding is the Council accepted, in January 2024, as Z was unable to attend school it had a duty under section 19 to arrange alternative educational provision suitable to their age, ability and aptitude, and special educational needs.
60. I appreciate Z did not receive the academic education they would have received had they been able to attend school. But in my view, the Council properly considered the types of alternative provision and placements suitable for Z, from January 2024, taking into account their current circumstances.
61. I have not found fault with the Council on this part of the complaint.

(b) Z’s transport provision in September 2024

62. Mrs Y made her request to the Council for free transport for Z to their placement with Provider C in August, before the start of the new school year.
63. The Council knew the circumstances - that although Provider C was not named as Z’s placement on their EHC Plan – school A had commissioned the placement and so was responsible for Z’s transport to Provider C.
64. But it failed to explain this to Mrs Y and school A before the start of term. Instead, it simply told Mrs Y her transport request had been refused.
65. Had it properly considered her request in August and contacted school A and Provider C to discuss Z’s transport arrangements, I consider the agreement it reached with Provider C in December 2024 would have been put in place from September 2024.
66. In my view the Council’s failure to properly consider Mrs Y’s transport request in August 2024 was fault.
67. Because of this failure, Mrs Y had to provide Z’s transport to Provider C from September to December 2024. This caused Z and the family uncertainty and worry about Z’s travel arrangements, and Mrs Y time and trouble taking Z to their placement.

(c) delay completing the November 2024 annual review of Z’s EHC Plan

68. The Council has accepted, and I agree, it failed to complete the annual review process, following the review meeting in November 2024, within the statutory timescales.
69. It should have issued:

• its decision to amend the Plan and the proposed amendments within four weeks of the date of the review meeting – by 18 December; and
• the final amended plan within a further eight weeks – by 12 February 2025.

70. But it did not: notify Mrs Y of its decision to amend the Plan until February 2025; issue a draft amended Plan until May 2025; or issue the final amended Plan until August 2025.
71. These were very significant delays, well outside the statutory timescales. And, as Z was due to move to a post-16 provision in September 2025, this meant it failed to meet the required deadline of 31 March 2025 for the completion of the review and specification of Z’s post-16 provision.
72. These delays were fault. They caused Mrs Y and Z frustration, worry and uncertainty about the outcome of the review and the arrangements for Z’s post-16 provision. By the time the final plan was issued in August 2025, just before the start of the start of the new academic year, the named placement was out of date requiring a further final amended plan naming their current college.   

The Council’s offer of redress

73. The Council previously offered a payment of £900 to recognise the impact of its failures on Z and the upset and worry caused to Mrs Y and the family.
74. In response to our enquiries, it told us it had increased this offer to £1,200 to acknowledge the cumulative impact of the delays, uncertainty and frustration experienced by Mrs Y, Z and the family because of its failures.
75. I consider this revised offer meets the expectations set out in our published guidance on remedies about appropriate redress for the injustice caused by the faults identified in this decision.

Service improvements

76. The Council told us it has made the following service improvements to strengthen monitoring of statutory timescales, management oversight, escalation processes, staff training and communication standards within the EHC service by:

• restructuring the EHC service team and developing revised processes, supported by a suite of training delivered to staff to upskill practitioners and embed improved practice at an individual level;
• introducing stronger oversight and accountability through enhanced team supervision arrangements and leadership performance meetings, to support sustained improvement and adherence to the Council’s statutory responsibilities;
• holding annual review workshops with parents and schools and developing clear annual review standards and principles to improve transparency and set clear expectations; and
• revising panel processes to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, shorten decision‑making timescales, and introduce a degree of devolved authority to support timely and proportionate decisions.

77. I consider these actions address the faults identified in this decision and I don’t propose to recommend any further service improvements here.

Back to top

Action

78. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:

• apologise to Mrs Y for its failure to properly consider her transport request in 2024, its delay completing the 2024 annual review, and the upset caused. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
• pay Mrs Y £1,200 in accordance with its offer, as a symbolic payment to recognise the worry, upset and uncertainty caused by its failures.

79. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

80. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above actions to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman