Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her adult child’s education, health and care plan after a review. Miss X said this meant her child did not have any adult education, and it caused unnecessary and avoidable distress to her and the family. We find the Council at fault, and this caused injustice. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her adult child’s education, health and care plan after a review.
2. Miss X said this meant her child did not have any adult education from April 2023 and this affected their mental health and socialisation. She also said this caused unnecessary and avoidable distress to her and the family.

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. The council must arrange for a child or young person’s education, health and care (EHC) plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date.
9. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC plan at a review, case law found councils must issue the final amended EHC plan within 12 weeks of the review meeting.

What happened

10. Miss X’s adult child, B, has an education, health and care (EHC) plan. In 2022, B’s plan said B should attend an adult education placement.
11. In 2023, this placement was no longer suitable for B. The Council reviewed B’s EHC plan in July. The Council decided to amend B’s EHC plan and arrange for B to have one-to-one tutoring and mentoring.
12. In October, Miss X complained to the Council that it had not issued B’s amended EHC plan. She said B was not getting any education.
13. The Council recognised it was late issuing B’s EHC plan.
14. In May 2024, Miss X complained again that the Council still had not issued B’s EHC plan.
15. In June, Miss X complained to the Ombudsman.
16. In November, the Council issued B’s EHC plan.

Analysis

17. The guidance is clear: councils must issue amended EHC plans within 12 weeks of a review meeting.
18. In B’s case, the review meeting was in July 2023. The Council should have issued the EHC plan by early October 2023. The Council did not issue the EHC plan until the end of November 2024. This is a delay of 14 months and is fault.
19. This fault caused B and Miss X significant injustice. B missed out on education that I find the Council could reasonably have arranged quicker than 14 months. I find the delay caused Miss X and B significant unnecessary and avoidable distress, and uncertainty. The delay also meant Miss X’s right to appeal the EHC plan was delayed.

Back to top

Action

20. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to B and Miss X in writing for the significant unnecessary and avoidable distress, and uncertainty caused by failing to issue B’s EHC plan for 14 months.
21. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making this apology.
22. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment of £1900 to Miss X. This is made up as follows:
• £1400 to reflect the injustice caused by the delay issuing B’s EHC plan. I consider £100 per month is an appropriate and proportionate amount for each month of delay. £100 per month of delay multiplied by 14 months of delay is £1400;
• £500 to remedy the significant unnecessary and avoidable distress, and uncertainty caused to Miss X and B. Our guidance on remedies suggests a maximum of £500 for distress. I consider the maximum payment is appropriate here because of the length of the delay, that the Council could have arranged this package quicker, and the impact of the missed education on B;
• £1400 plus £500 is £1900.
23. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman