Summary: The Council was at fault for causing a short delay when deciding Ms X’s daughter’s special educational needs support. It also caused a delay in sending a copy of the support plan to Ms X. It has already apologised to Ms X and has made service improvements. It has now also agreed to offer her a small, symbolic payment to recognise her injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains that the Council caused significant delays deciding her daughter’s (Y’s) special educational needs support. She says this should have been done by April 2024, but the support was not finalised until February 2025.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant guidance.
6. Ms X 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

Guidance

7. 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.
8. Statutory government guidance (the ‘SEND code of practice’) says that, within four weeks of an annual review, the council must write to the child’s parent and tell them whether it has decided to keep the EHC plan as it is, amend it or cease it.
9. If the council has decided to amend the plan, it must do so and issue a new one within a further eight weeks.

What happened

10. In August 2023, the Council issued an EHC plan for Y, naming an independent residential school. The provision in the plan included:
• Small class sizes.
• Access to key adults, all trained in preventing and managing challenging behaviour.
• Regular gross and fine motor activities through the school week.
• Various other in-lesson approaches to learning.
11. The school held an annual review in late November. Following this, in February 2024, the Council wrote to Ms X and said it intended to amend Y’s EHC plan.
12. Around this time, the Council ran a project to reduce its backlog of EHC plans which needed amending following annual reviews. This involved, among other things, hiring staff to help it deal with the backlog.
13. The Council issued Y’s final amended EHC plan in April. There were no changes to the placement or the special educational needs provision. The Council did not send this plan to Ms X.
14. In August, Ms X complained to the Council. She said it had caused a significant delay in amending Y’s EHC plan.
15. Shortly afterwards, in September, the Council sent the final amended plan to
    Ms X and apologised for not sending it earlier.
16. The Council also allocated a new officer to handle Y’s case.
17. In December, Y’s school held another annual review. Following this, the same month, the Council wrote to Ms X and said it intended to amend Y’s EHC plan again.
18. The Council issued Y’s final amended EHC plan in February 2025. Again, the placement and special educational needs provision remained unchanged.
19. Y’s school held a further review in May. The Council decided to amend the plan again and issued the final version in July.

My findings

20. Following Y’s annual review in late 2023, the Council was five weeks late issuing a notice of amendment, and then a further week late issuing Y’s EHC plan, for which it was at fault.
21. Furthermore, the Council also failed to send the resulting EHC plan to Ms X for several months, for which it was also at fault.
22. However, the Council’s next two reviews (and the amendments to Y’s EHC plan which resulted from those reviews) were conducted without delay.
23. It is not obvious that Y suffered any significant injustice from the delay in early 2024. Throughout this period, she remained at the same school, with largely the same special educational needs provision. The delay did not make any material difference to the education or support she received. So I will not recommend that she gets a personal remedy from the Council.
24. I am satisfied, though, that Ms X likely suffered some distress from both the amendment delay and the delay in receiving Y’s EHC plan. This latter issue also meant she felt she had to submit a complaint about what she thought was ongoing delay, even though (unbeknown to her) the plan had already been finalised.
25. The Council has already apologised for these failings, but I make a further recommendation, below, for Ms X’s injustice.
26. The Council has clearly taken steps to deal with the problems which Ms X experienced, and I note that since causing a delay on Y’s case in early 2024 it has conducted two more annual reviews, and issued two more amended EHC plans, without further delays.
27. Time will tell whether the Council’s service improvements continue to have a positive effect – but it would not be proportionate to recommend that it make additional improvements at this point.

Back to top

Action

28. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Ms X of £150 to recognise her likely distress from its delays in amending Y’s EHC plan and then in sending her a copy of the plan.
29. The Council will provide us with evidence it has made this payment.

Back to top

Decision

30. The Council was at fault, and this caused Ms X an injustice, which it will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman