Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to issue her child’s education, health and care plan within statutory timeframes after an annual review. She said the Council delayed by nearly a year. Miss X said this meant her child’s needs were not met and it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council will make a payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to issue an education, health and care plan for her child within statutory timeframes after an annual review. She said the Council delayed by nearly a year.
2. Miss X said her child started a new school a month after the review. This meant the school had no up-to-date information about her child’s complex needs, so their needs have not been met, and her child is now out of school. This caused unnecessary and avoidable distress to her and her child.

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. 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(i), as amended)
5. 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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
7. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

8. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an education, health and care (EHC) plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
9. The council must arrange for the EHC plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. If it is decided at the review to amend the plan, the council must issue a final amended EHC plan within 12 weeks of the annual review meeting.

What happened

10. Miss X’s child, B, has an education, health and care (EHC) plan. There was an annual review of this plan in April 2023.
11. In October, Miss X complained to the Council because it had not issued the final EHC plan after the review. The Council accepted there was a delay and apologised for the inconvenience.
12. The Council issued the final EHC plan in March 2024. The Council apologised again for the delays and the inconvenience.

Analysis

13. The annual review was held in April 2023. The decision was to amend B’s EHC plan. Therefore, the Council should have issued the amended plan by mid-July 2023. The Council issued the plan in March 2024, eight months late. This is fault.
14. The Council said it did not get the paperwork from B’s school about the annual review. The Council said it chased the school in June. I consider this is too late to have chased the school because the final EHC plan was due to be issued by mid-July. The Council should have chased the school for this information much earlier. It says it did not get the paperwork until September.
15. The Council said part of the delay was due to taking into account Miss X’s preferences when amending the EHC plan. While I understand why a council would do this, there is nothing in the guidance that says a plan should or could be delayed for this reason. The guidance is clear: the final EHC plan must be issued within 12 weeks of the annual review meeting. The Council could have issued the final plan and if Miss X was unhappy with the content of it, she had the right to appeal the plan.
16. This fault caused injustice to B because their school did not have up-to-date information about how to meet B’s complex needs. This also caused injustice to B and Miss X in that it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress.
17. I am satisfied the Council has apologised for the injustice caused. However, the Council did not consider a financial remedy, in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. Please see paragraph 19.
18. The Council explained what action it has taken to avoid future delays with EHC plan reviews. I am satisfied with these actions, therefore I do not propose any additional service improvements.

Back to top

Agreed action

19. The Council has now considered the impact of the delays on Miss X and B. The Council has offered to make a payment of £1950 to Miss X to remedy the injustice caused to her and B. This is made up as follows:
• £1200 for the impact of the delay issuing the final EHC plan; and,
• £750 because Miss X was “significantly inconvenienced in her communication with the Council” and this caused distress.
• This totals £1950.
20. I have considered these amounts and the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. I consider these amounts are in line with our guidance. I consider the amounts are appropriate and proportionate to the level of injustice caused here. For this reason, I accept the Council’s proposed financial remedy. The Council should make this payment within four weeks of this decision.
21. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Final decision

22. I have completed my investigation. I uphold Miss X’s complaint, finding fault and injustice. The Council will make a payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice caused.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman