Summary: Mr A complained on behalf of Mr B about the Council’s decision to cease Mr B’s Education, Health and Care Plan in 2020 and failure to support him to get back into education since then. We found the Council was at fault for the delay in the Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment process from March 2024 and records keeping around its decision for additional funding for Mr B’s social care support. The Council agreed to our recommendations on what to do to remedy the injustice its faults caused to Mr B.

The complaint

1. Mr A complained, on behalf of Mr B, about the Council:
1. ceasing his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in 2020;
2. not supporting his return to college in 2021;
3. not supporting his college attendance in September 2024; and
4. not supporting him in accessing leisure and hobbies.
2. Mr A says that because of the Council’s actions Mr B missed out on education and support to participate in activities that he wanted to take part in.
3. Mr A would like the Council to apologise to Mr B and pay him for the education that he lost, issue a new EHC Plan for him, put in place all the support to enable him attending college in September 2024 and put in place all the necessary support to meet his needs and enable his access to hobbies and activities within the community.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 or continue an investigation if we decide:
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

5. 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/care provider 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

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have decided not to investigate points a and b of Mr A’s complaint. This is because I consider that these parts of his complaint are late and it’s unlikely our investigation would lead to a different worthwhile outcome for Mr B. I decided to focus my investigation on the actions the Council took from January 2024 in supporting him to access education and the community.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr A and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr A 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

Education, Health and Care assessments

11. The Children and Families Act 2014 (the Act) sets out the framework for supporting special educational needs (SEN). The Act is supported by Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) and the Special Educational Needs Code of Practice 2015 (the Code). These contain detailed guidance to local authorities about how they provide support for children and young people with SEN.
12. The majority of children with SEN have those needs met by schools and early years settings. Those bodies have a responsibility to identify children with SEN, sometimes with the help of outside specialists.
13. If a school or parent has concerns that, despite a school’s SEN provision, a child is not making the expected progress, they can ask a local authority to consider whether it needs to carry out an assessment of EHC needs.
14. An EHC Plan is a legal document which sets out a description of a child's special educational needs (what he or she can and cannot do). It says what needs to be done to meet those needs by education, health and social care.
15. The Council must respond to all requests for an EHC Plan. It must decide whether an assessment is needed within six weeks of receiving the request. The whole process from the point of request to the Council issuing the final EHC Plan must take no more than 20 weeks.
16. Where there are exceptional circumstances, it may not be possible for the Council to meet the timescales. The Council should tell the child’s parent or the young person of the reasons for any delays.
17. Councils must seek advice from the child’s parent, their school, healthcare professionals involved, an educational psychologist, and from anyone else the parent has reasonably requested (paragraph 9.49)
18. The Regulations set out the minimum information and advice the Council should seek in an EHC assessment. A parent or young person can ask the Council to seek advice from anyone within health, education or social care and, provided it is a reasonable request, the Council must do so. It is more likely to be reasonable if that professional is already involved with the child.
19. The Regulations say the advice should be provided within six weeks, which is also the timescale for a local authority deciding whether it needs to draw up a plan.
20. The Code says a council:
• must ensure the child’s parents are fully included from the start and consulted throughout the production of the plan;
• should carry out timely, well informed assessments.
21. The Council can only issue an EHC Plan after a child or young person has gone through the assessment. At the end of that process the Council must decide whether to issue a Plan or not.
22. If the Council decides to issue a Plan it must first issue a draft for the parents or young person to consider. The Council does not have to provide exactly what the parents request but it should be able to explain why the EHC Plan meets the needs of the child.
23. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the Council’s decision whether to conduct an assessment, and the content of the EHC Plan as these are appealable to SEND Tribunal.
24. The Ombudsman can look at any delay in the assessment and creation of an EHC Plan as well as any failure by the Council to deliver the provision within an EHC Plan.
25. Once the Council issues the final EHC Plan it has a legal duty to deliver the educational and social care provision set out in the Plan. The local health care provider will have the duty to deliver the health care provision.

Care Assessment

26. Sections 9 and 10 of the Care Act 2014 require councils to carry out an assessment for any adult with an appearance of need for care and support. They must provide an assessment to everyone regardless of their finances or whether the council thinks the person has eligible needs. The assessment must be of the adult’s needs and how they impact on their wellbeing and the results they want to achieve. It must also involve the individual and where suitable their carer or any other person they might want involved.

Care Plan

27. The Care Act 2014 gives councils a legal responsibility to provide a care and support plan (or a support plan for a carer). The care and support plan should consider what needs the person has, what they want to achieve, what they can do by themselves or with existing support and what care and support may be available in the local area. When preparing a care and support plan the council must involve any carer the adult has. The support plan must include a personal budget, which is the money the council has worked out it will cost to arrange the necessary care and support for that person.

Reviews

28. Section 27 of the Care Act 2014 says councils should keep care and support plans under review. Government Care and Support Statutory Guidance says councils should review plans at least every 12 months. Councils should consider a light touch review six to eight weeks after agreeing and signing off the plan and personal budget. They should carry out reviews as quickly as is reasonably practicable in a timely manner proportionate to the needs to be met. Councils must also conduct a review if an adult or a person acting on the adult’s behalf makes a reasonable request for one.

What happened

Key events leading up to January 2024

29. The Council carried out a review of Mr B’s care and needs plan in November 2022. The records show that Mr B requested the Council to support him with accessing sports activities and a music production course. Mr B considered the Council should pay for those activities to compensate him for the previous lack of support. The Council’s notes show it explained to Mr B that it did not consider those to be part of his assessed needs and because of this it would not pay for them. It noted that Mr B could fund those himself if he wished to participate. Mr B also asked for support to access a music production course and the Council agreed that he should receive 10 hours of 1:1 support on top of his core funding to support his access to social activities of his choosing. This was available to him through the care support plan in place.
30. In early 2023 Mr B’s temporary assisted living place started to breakdown. In November 2023 the Council carried out a review of Mr B’s care support plan. The records show similar information to the one captured in late 2022.
31. In November 2023 Mr B moved from his assisted living facility to another one that he and the Council agreed was better suited to meet his needs.

Key events from January 2024 onwards

32. The Council met with Mr B in January 2024 to check if his new placement was meeting his needs. The notes show Mr B asked for support to attend College from September 2024 and his social worker was to ask the SEND team for an EHC Plan.
33. In early March 2024 Mr A complained to the Council. He said that the Council:
• ended Mr B’s EHC Plan in 2020 without telling him and without making sure he understood the consequences of that decision;
• delayed preparing a new EHC Plan for him despite his requests since 2020;
• failed to secure a college place for him since he asked for one in 2020;
• failed to provide the support to enable Mr B to access leisure hobbies and activities in the community; and
• failed to prepare an EHC Plan in time for Mr B to start attending college in September 2024.
34. Mr B’s social worker asked the Council to carry out an EHC Assessment in mid-March 2024. The Council agreed to assess Mr B for an EHC Plan by the end of the month.
35. The Council responded within 10 days and said it had sent a letter about ending Mr B’s EHC Plan back in 2020. It said this decision was a result of Mr B saying he no longer wished to continue with his education. The Council said Mr B had confirmed this again in April 2020 and June 2021. The response also confirmed that if Mr B required support, additional hours could be added to his support package, rather than via an EHC Plan. The Council had provided Mr B with a support plan since December 2019 to enable him accessing medical appointments, weekly shopping and engaging in activities.
36. Mr A and Mr B were not happy about the Council’s response and in mid-April they asked it to consider the complaint further. They said the Council had still not provided the evidence of what support was available to Mr B to enable his access to the community and education.
37. The Council issued its final response in mid-July 2024. It provided the evidence Mr A and Mr B were asking for and confirmed Mr B’s social worker made an EHC Assessment application and it was processing it.
38. In September 2024 Mr B started to attend college, accessing his course.
39. In October 2024 the Council carried out a review of Mr B’s care plan. The records show that staff from his assisted living facility encouraged him to attend and pay for activities of his choosing. The notes show Mr B’s mental health improved and he was accessing the activities of his choice.
40. In December 2024 Mr B asked Mr A to make a complaint on his behalf to the Ombudsman because he was unhappy about the Council’s actions and responses to his complaint.
41. The Council reassessed Mr B’s care needs in April 2025 after his assisted living facility asked for an additional 17 hours of 1:1 support to assist Mr B with attending college. The records show this was due to start by the end of the month provided the Council’s Panel approved it.
42. At the end of the month, Mr B’s assisted living place handed in notice to the Council and said this was because of the gap in support. It told the Council it could continue to support Mr B as long as the Council adjusted the cost of the placement for the support the placement was delivering to him. Mr B’s placement continued, and he attended his college.
43. In May 2025 Mr B’s case officer changed, and failed to complete a handover, which led to further delays in progressing Mr B’s EHC Needs assessment.
44. In September 2025 the Council issued a draft EHC Plan for Mr B.

Analysis

EHC Assessment

45. Generally, we expect councils to follow the timescales set out in the Code which is statutory guidance. We measure a council’s performance against the Code and we are likely to find fault where there are significant breaches of timescales.
46. Mr B’s social worker asked for an EHC assessment in mid-March 2024. The Council decided to carry out an assessment at the end of March, so it made a decision within 10 weeks as it was supposed to.
47. The Council said that because of the case officer change in May 2025 Mr B’s assessment was not processed correctly. This suggests that little to no work was completed between March 2024 and May 2025 when a new case officer took over and requested all the necessary evidence. This is a delay of over twelve months in progressing Mr B’s EHC Needs Assessment. The delay was not in line with the Code and was fault. In response to our enquiries the Council accepted it was at fault and apologised for the impact this would have had on Mr B and his family.
48. The Council also failed to complete the process and issue a final EHC plan within 20 weeks from the date of Mr B’s social worker’s request in mid-March 2024. It should have issued Mr B’s final plan by beginning of August 2024. The final EHC plan was not available until early September 2025. This is a delay of over twelve months which was fault. It had an adverse impact on Mr B because it delayed his right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal and caused avoidable distress and time and trouble chasing officers up.
49. Whilst Mr B’s EHC Needs Assessment was delayed, he did receive support in accessing education and his preferred college course since September 2024 under the Council’s Care Act duties. Because of this, I do not consider that Mr B has missed out on any education and have not recommended a remedy for this. However, the delays in the process caused Mr B avoidable frustration.
50. The Council confirmed that it has recruited additional staff and cleared the backlog of EHC Needs Assessments it had, alongside reviewing workflows to prevent future delays in the statutory process.

Support to access activities

51. Mr B complained the Council did not provide him with support to access activities that he wanted to participate in. The Council’s notes also show Mr B thought the Council should fund the activities as a result of a lack of support in the past.
52. The Council’s records show that it considered Mr B’s request as part of his support plan reviews under the Care Act. However, it decided that the activities he wanted to take part in did not form part of his eligible needs, therefore the Council would not pay for them. The Council noted that Mr B received benefits that he could use to enable him to take part in the activities of his choosing.
53. The Council’s records also show that the support plan in place included core hours of support for the staff from his assisted living facility to support him in accessing the community.
54. It was in early 2025 when the assisted living requested more hours of support, and the Council agreed to review his support plan to reflect the change in circumstances.
55. From what we have seen, the Council kept Mr B’s support plan under review and responded to the information Mr B’s assisted living place gave it. We have not found fault in the decision-making process, and because of this we cannot call into question the Council’s decision about funding Mr B’s activities of choice.
56. However, in April 2025 Mr B’s assisted living place asked the Council for additional hours to support Mr B’s college attendance. The Council’s records show that this request would have been considered by a Panel, but the Council does not have any evidence of the Panel’s decision. This is fault.
57. The Council confirmed that the Council has been paying for the additional 17 hours of support since late August 2025. I consider the delay in implementing the funding for the additional hours for Mr B’s support is fault. This likely caused him avoidable uncertainty about the support his assisted living placement would be able to continue to offer him, however my understanding is that it continued to assist Mr B with college attendance. This is why I do not consider he has missed out on the support he needed, because he continued to be assisted when waiting for the Council’s decision about the additional funding.

Back to top

Action

58. Within one month of the date of the final decision statement, the Council will:
• apologise to Mr B for its failure to complete his EHC Needs Assessment within the statutory 20 weeks and the distress and frustration this has caused him. The Council should refer to our guidance on making an effective apology;
• pay Mr B £700 to remedy the distress, frustration and uncertainty he experienced as a result of the delay in the EHC Needs Assessment process and agreeing the additional 17 hours of funding between April 2025 and August 2025; and
• review its process for documenting Panel decisions to ensure it is meeting the requirements of the best administrative practice.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

60. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman