Summary: Mr X complained about how the Council reviewed and amended his Education Health and Care Plan. There was fault in how the Council failed to properly review Mr X’s plan between 2018 and 2022 and delayed amending his plan in preparation for his transfer to post-16 education. This caused Mr X to miss out on over a year of education and caused both him and his family members avoidable distress. The Council agreed to apologise, and pay Mr X, his brother and mother financial remedies.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about how the Council prepared for his transition to post-16 education. He says the Council failed to:
• review his Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan since 2018;
• amend his EHC Plan in time for his move to college in September 2023;
• arrange a suitable education placement for him to move to; and
• communicate with him properly or keep him informed.
2. As a result, Mr X says he missed out on suitable education for over a year and was left isolated at home for that time, which affected his wellbeing. His brother, Mr Y and mother, Mrs Z, say they had to provide substantial support to Mr X during that time which caused them significant difficulties.
3. They want the Council to apologise and properly recognise the impact this had on them.

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. 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate. 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)
6. 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.
7. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X, Mr Y, Mrs Z and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X, Mr Y, Mrs Z and Council and Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
10. 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 found

Education health and care plans

11. 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.
12. 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. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to amend, maintain or discontinue 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) 
13. If a council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal.
14. For young people moving from secondary school to a post-16 institution or apprenticeship, the council must review and amend the EHC Plan – including specifying the post-16 provision and naming the institution – by 31 March in the calendar year of the transfer.  

What happened

15. Mr X has special educational needs and has had an EHC Plan from the Council for several years. Before turning 16, Mr X attended a mainstream secondary school, School A, named in his EHC Plan.
16. School A reviewed Y’s EHC Plan every year since 2018 and sent reports of those meetings to the Council. The last review for the period I have investigated was in November 2022. This was the annual review to prepare for Mr X’s move to post-16 education. The plan was for Mr X to attend a specialist college from September 2023.
17. In August 2023, the Council wrote to Mr X about the November 2022 annual review, and the reviews from 2020, 2021 and early 2022. It said it intended to amend Mr X’s EHC Plan, including searching for a suitable post-16 college place.
18. Because Mr X did not have an agreed college place, he did not start attending college in September 2023, while the Council was consulting other college places.
19. While Mr X was out of education, he spent most of his time at home being supported by his family, especially his brother, Mr Y, and his mother, Mrs Z. This included supporting Mr X with his emotional wellbeing and with practical matters, including dealing with the Council and plans for his future education.
20. The Council issued a final amended EHC Plan in October 2024, naming Mr X’s preferred college, College B, a residential specialist college.
21. Mr X started attending College B shortly after the Council arranged his placement. However, because this was after the start of the school year, Mr X missed out on a lot of the independent living skills covered at the start of the term, along with the ability to form relationships with his fellow students.
22. Mr X says that, because of this, he struggled to settle into College B. He had to return home shortly before Christmas and was only able to return in late March 2025, after the College put in place extra support for him.

My findings

Delays amending Mr X’s EHC Plan for post-16 education

23. The Council should have amended Mr X’s EHC Plan, for his transfer to post-16 education, by 31 March 2023. However, it failed to make a decision on the November 2022 review until August 2023 and failed to issue an amended final EHC Plan until October 2024. That was a delay of over 18 months and was fault.
24. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that if the Council had acted within the required timescales, it likely would have arranged for Mr X to attend College B from September 2023.
25. Had his placement been arranged at the right time, it is likely Mr X would have had a successful start at College B and he would have been in suitable, full-time education from September 2023.
26. Therefore, I am satisfied the delays in amending Mr X’s EHC Plan led to him missing out on education for the 2023/24 school year, and for the unsuccessful start at College B between October 2024 and April 2025. This was a total of around four and a half terms.
27. Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss.
28. Taking into account Mr X’s significant special educational needs as set out in his EHC Plan, the specialist nature of College B and that the first year of post-16 education was a significant stage in his education, I consider an appropriate remedy to be:
• £2,200 per term for the three and a half terms Mr X received no education; and
• £1,800 per term for the term in which Mr X’s education was significantly disrupted on his start at College B
29. I am also satisfied that, based on Mr X’s health conditions that his time spent mostly at home over the 2023/24 school year was very isolating and distressing for Mr X. Therefore, I consider the Council should pay Mr X a further remedy of £500 to recognise that additional distress.
30. I am satisfied Mr Y provided extensive practical support to Mr X during the year he was out of education and this had an impact on him. I consider the fault on the part of the Council caused Mr Y avoidable inconvenience, uncertainty and distress over a prolonged period.
31. I am satisfied that Mrs Z was affected by Mr X’s time out of education. This caused her significant worry and she also provided a lot of support for Mr X’s emotional wellbeing. That caused Mrs Z significant avoidable distress over the same period.
32. I am also satisfied the break in Mr X’s education meant that Mrs Z was not entitled to benefits in respect of Mr X during that time. While I do not consider this caused Mrs Z a long-time financial loss (since she will likely be entitled to the same benefits in a later year) I do accept the financial strain this caused added to her distress.

Delays reviewing Mr X’s EHC Plan between 2018 and 2022

33. Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to review his EHC Plan between 2018 and 2022 is late. However, I am satisfied Mr X did not know about this issue until recently, when he became more independent. Before this, it would have fallen to Mrs Z to raise these concerns. However, I am satisfied that due to language difficulties Mrs Z would likely not have realised she could have complained. For those reasons, I am satisfied there are good reasons to consider Mr X’s complaint about this now.
34. The Council accepted it did not make decisions about the annual reviews carried out between 2018 and 2022, until August 2023. The delay making those decisions was fault.
35. However, I do not consider those delays caused Mr X an injustice. The annual review reports from School A during that time show Mr X and his parents were generally happy with his progress at school and the support he was receiving. The reports do not suggest any significant amendments to Mr X’s EHC Plan and there is no evidence the School raised any concerns with the Council about Mr X’s plan.
36. Therefore, I consider it unlikely the Council would have made any changes to Mr X’s EHC Plan, even if it had properly decided each annual review as it should have done.

Back to top

Action

37. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:
• apologise to Mr X, in a suitable medium, for the missing education and additional distress this caused him;
• pay Mr X £9,500 to recognise the education he missed out on (this is intended for Mr X’s future educational benefit);
• pay Mr X £500 to recognise the extra isolation and distress he experienced while at home for the 2023/24 school year;
• apologise to Mr Y and Mrs Z for the frustration, inconvenience and distress they experienced while supporting Mr X during his year at home;
• pay Mr Y £500 to recognise that distress; and
• pay Mrs Z £500 to recognise that distress.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
39. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apologies I have recommended in my findings.
40. I would normally have made service improvement recommendations about how the Council monitors the annual review process for EHC Plans. However, since the events I have investigated in this complaint, the Council has implemented a priority action plan to address, among other issues, the timeliness of annual reviews. I do not consider, at this time, a further service improvement recommendation is appropriate.

Back to top

Decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman