Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of his child’s Education, Health, and Care plan. This is because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, the Council has offered an appropriate remedy to recognise the distress caused by the identified faults.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the Council’s handling of his child’s Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plan. He says the Council:
• Failed to complete an annual review in 2022.
• Failed to attend the 2023 annual review meeting.
• Failed to issue the final EHC plan within the required timescales following the 2023 annual review.
• Only agreed to fund his child’s educational placement for a term despite the school being named in the final EHC plan.
• Inappropriately started up transition to adulthood planning.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X’s child, A, has an EHC plan.
6. During its complaint investigation, the Council accepted there had been fault with its handling of A’s EHC plan. The Council accepted:
• It had failed to complete an annual review in July 2022.
• It had delayed in issuing the final amended EHC plan following the annual review in May 2023.
• It had delayed in agreeing funding for the full academic year at A’s school.
7. Regarding the failure to complete the annual review in July 2022, the Council explained this was due to an appeal being heard by the Tribunal during the period January to July 2022. The Council accepts that regardless of the ongoing appeal, it should have completed the annual review.
8. I have considered whether this fault will have caused any significant injustice. While I accept this will have caused some distress to Mr X, I am satisfied the fault is not likely to have caused any significant injustice to A. This is because a final amended EHC plan was issued in August 2022. The evidence available suggests Mr X was happy with this plan. Therefore, the outcome is likely the same even if the Council had held the annual review in July 2022.
9. The Council held an annual review in May 2023. During its complaint investigation, the Council accepted the case worker did not attend the meeting. The Council explained the reasons for this but accepted it had enough notice of the meeting to confirm or decline attendance. An investigation is not justified as it would not likely lead to any further findings on this point.
10. It is clear was delay with the EHC process following the annual review meeting in May 2023. The Council should have issued its decision to amend the plan, as well as the proposed amended EHC plan, within four weeks (June 2023) of the annual review meeting. The Council then had to issue the final EHC plan within eight weeks of this (August 2023). However, the Council did not issue the proposed amended EHC plan until September 2023, and the final EHC plan was not issued until October 2023.
11. I am satisfied the identified delays will have caused distress to Mr X. This is particularly because it also contributed to delay in the Council making decisions regarding funding for A’s school.
12. The Council has accepted there was some delay in agreeing funding for A’s school for the full academic year. The Council said it initially agreed to only fund a term due to insufficient information. It is likely the delays with the EHC process contributed to this. The Council confirmed it has now agreed to fund A’s school up to July 2024.
13. I have considered whether the delays in agreeing the funding would have impacted on A’s educational process. I am satisfied it likely would not have as there is no evidence the school prevented A from attending school despite the funding for the full academic year not being guaranteed. Therefore, the injustice caused by the identified fault is distress to Mr X.
14. The Council has offered Mr X £500 to recognise the distress caused by the faults identified. I am satisfied this offer is within the range set out within our guidance on remedies. Therefore, an investigation would not likely lead to any further recommendations.
15. An investigation is also not justified as it is not likely to lead to any different findings regarding Mr X’s complaints about the Council beginning planning for adulthood and refusal to reimburse Mr X for legal costs incurred during his appeal. This is because the SEN Code of Practice notes that annual reviews from year nine onwards, or ages 13-14, should have a focus on preparing for adulthood. Further, the correct process for Mr X to challenge an EHC plan is an appeal to Tribunal. It was Mr X decision to appoint legal counsel to represent him during the appeal, rather than due to any fault by the Council. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to recommend the Council reimburse the costs incurred.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr’s complaint because an investigation would not lead to any different findings or outcomes. In addition, the Council has offered an appropriate remedy to recognise the distress caused by the identified faults.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman