Summary: We have found the Council at fault for its delay in issuing Y’s final amended Education, Health and Care Plan following an annual review. This delayed Miss X’s appeal rights, causing her avoidable distress. We have also found fault with the Council for its delay in securing alternative provision when Y stopped attending school. This caused Y to miss 2.5 terms of education. The Council has agreed to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her son’s EHC Plan following an emergency review. She also complained that the Council failed to secure alternative provision when her son stopped attending school.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
5. 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(1), as amended)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not considered matters related to the naming of a placement for Y. Miss X can appeal this to the SEND Tribunal.
7. I have not considered matters which took place after Miss X brought her complain to us (January 2025). I have referred to dates after this but only to calculate the delays.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

EHC Plan

10. 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. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this.

Reviewing EHC Plans

11. 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)
12. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.

What happened

13. Miss X’s son, Y has SEND and an EHC Plan.

Annual review – change of placement

14. In June 2024, following a diagnosis confirmation, Miss X requested a change of placement for Y. Y’s school held an emergency annual review and submitted the paperwork to the Council in July. The review concluded that Y’s current mainstream placement was no longer suitable.
15. The Council said that Miss X requested that Y remain at his mainstream school until the end of the academic year and then transition to a specialist college in September 2024.
16. In September, the Council sent Miss X a phase transfer form requesting her preferred placements. The SEND panel accepted that Y needed a specialist placement and told the Council to consult local specialist providers.
17. When Miss X brought her complain to the Ombudsman in January 2025, the Council had not found a placement and had not issued a final amended EHC Plan.

Section 19 duty

18. At the end of October, the SEND panel requested confirmation of Y’s enrolment status at his mainstream school before the Council could agree any AP tuition.
19. The Council requested AP tuition for Y at SEND panel in early February. The panel requested a more specific tuition proposal for Y. Two weeks later, the SEND panel deferred its decision on AP pending clarity on Y’s mainstream schools continued funding and Y’s off-roll status.
20. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Update

21. In April 2025, the SEND panel approved interim tuition with an AP provider, delivering 15 hours per week for 13 weeks initially, to be reviewed and continued if necessary.
22. The Council issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan in August 2025. Miss X said this named a college that she had not applied for and that had not agreed to accept Y.

My findings

Delayed EHC Plan

23. Y’s school held an annual review in June 2024. This confirmed that Y needed a change in placement as his mainstream school was not suitable. The Council should have issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan within 12 weeks of the annual review meeting. The Council issued the Plan in August 2025, nearly a year late.
24. This was fault and that delayed Miss X’s appeal rights. It also meant that Y did not have a suitable placement for a year.
25. The Council has agreed to pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £500 in recognition of the distress this caused both her and Y.

Delay in securing alternative provision

26. Miss X told the Council that Y had stopped attending school in June 2024. The Council consulted AP providers and made requests to SEND panel but ultimately it did not secure AP until April 2025. This was fault. This caused Y to miss education for 2.5 school terms.
27. In line with our guidance on remedies, the Council has agreed to pay Miss X £900 per term in recognition of the missed education. This equates to £2250.

Back to top

Agreed action

28. Within 4 weeks of my decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Miss X for the delay in issuing Y’s final amended EHC Plan and for the delay in securing alternative provision when Y was unable to attend school.
2. Pay Miss X £2250 in recognition of the missed education.
3. Pay Miss X £500 in recognition of the distress caused by the delays.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman