Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council delayed in completing the Annual Review of her daughter, C’s Education Health and Care Plan and failed to continue funding extra maths tuition or consider funding other support. We have found fault in the actions of the Council which has caused Mrs B and C significant distress, inconvenience and financial hardship. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and C, make an additional payment to them and confirm the arrangements for the reassessment.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that Kent County Council (the Council) in respect of her daughter, C’s special educational needs:
• delayed in completing the annual review process in 2024;
• failed to chase up the school to obtain the annual review paperwork following the meeting in June 2024;
• failed to issue an amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timeframe;
• failed to address the request for extra support with maths and science;
• stopped paying for C’s maths tuition in December 2024 without notice or reason and has failed to reinstate it again without reason; and
• delayed excessively in responding to her complaints.
2. This situation has cause Mrs B significant distress and frustration to the extent she has had to give up her job to deal with the issues. She has also experienced financial hardship trying to afford the extra tuition and C has continued to miss out on proper support during her transition phase.

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(1), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
7. 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

Special educational needs

8. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an 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

9. 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) 
10. 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

Background

11. Mrs B made a previous complaint to us about the Council’s delay in carrying out an annual review of C’s EHC Plan due in April 2023. She also complained about the failure to fund extra maths’ tuition. We made a decision on this complaint in March 2024. The Council agreed to pay the maths’ tuition from July 2023 until November 2024 and issue the final EHC Plan.

Annual review 2024

12. The Council issued the final EHC Plan on 7 March 2024. The school held the Annual Review meeting on 21 June 2024. The report said C had really benefitted from the extra maths’ tuition and would like to continue this and increase the personal budget to include science tuition along with a personal trainer.
13. The report form requests that the report is sent to the Council within two weeks. The school said it sent the report to the Council shortly after the meeting. Mrs B said she has seen an email from the school to the Council enclosing the annual review report, but she does not have a copy of it. The Council said it did not receive the report.
14. In September 2024 Mrs B contacted the Council regarding post-16 placements. She did not receive the information she required before the deadline to express a preference for a placement. On 21 October 2024 she made a formal complaint and raised the issue that she had not received any documentation following the annual review. She sent a further email on 25 October 2024 saying the Council needed to chase up the annual review paperwork as it was its responsibility to complete this. She again said she had requested additional support for C for her GCSEs which she was due to take in the summer.
15. In December 2024 Mrs B became aware that the payment for the maths tuition had stopped. She had not received any notification of this and started to fund the tuition herself to ensure C did not miss out on the essential support.
16. On 17 January 2025 the Council allocated a new caseworker to C’s case and instructed them to contact the school for the annual review paperwork and progress the funding for the maths tuition. The Council requested the paperwork from the school on 20 January 2025 and the school sent it over on 24 January 2025. It said it had previously sent it in June 2024 but did not send any evidence of this.
17. The Council responded to Mrs B’s complaint on 28 January 2025. It apologised for the delays in completing the annual review but said it had not received the annual review paperwork from June 2024. It offered £1000 payment for not meeting the statutory timescales for either 2023 or 2024 and £600 for Mrs B’s time and trouble.
18. Mrs B escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. The Council responded on 20 February 2025. It said the Post-16 team was waiting for Mrs B to send in the costs relating to the tuition. She said she had already sent these in. The Council would then consider the matter at Panel. It said the school was responsible for ensuring the provision in section F of the EHC Plan was put in place and directed her to the school’s complaints process if this was not happening. It repeated its offer of £1600 in recognition of the delays.
19. The Council issued a final amended EHC Plan on 27 March 2025 naming a post-16 placement. In April 2025 it refused to fund the maths tuition but gave no reasons. It has also agreed to carry out a full reassessment of C’s special educational needs but has not provided any further information on how this will progress.

Injustice

20. Mrs B has given up her job, she says because of all the extra work involved in dealing with C’s education issues. She has also sought help from her GP due to the additional stress. She has paid for weekly maths and science lessons for C since January 2025. She also says due to the lack of extra support C had difficulty with her GCSE exams.

Findings

Annual review

21. The Council is responsible for ensuring the annual review of an EHC plan is carried out within the statutory timescales and it has taken steps to achieve this by asking the report to be sent within two weeks. There is some evidence that the school sent the report within the requested timescale: the school said it sent the report and Mrs B said she saw the email. On balance I consider it is likely the school sent the report, but the Council either did not receive it or failed to act on it.
22. But even if the Council did not receive it, I consider it should have chased the school before the end of the summer term to ensure the review could be progressed. It did not do so until 20 January 2025, despite being alerted to the problem by Mrs B in October 2024. This was fault which caused significant delay to the annual review process.
23. The Council should have issued an amendment notice by 19 July 2024 and an amended final EHC Plan by 13 September 2024. It did not do so until 27 March 2025, over 6 months late.
24. In addition to the uncertainty and distress this caused in a key GCSE year, it also meant C’s maths tuition stopped abruptly. If the review had been completed sooner this could have continued without a break. The Council then failed to consider whether the maths tuition should restart and appears to have blamed Mrs B for not providing information when she had already done so. This was fault which exacerbated the impact on Mrs B. It is unclear why the tuition never restarted but it is possible that by the time the Council actually considered the request it was too late. Additionally, the Council failed to consider the request for science tuition and a personal trainer for exercise. All of which caused further distress and uncertainty to both Mrs B and C. Mrs B has also given up work and experienced financial hardship funding the extra tuition for C.

Complaint-handling

25. The Council says it will respond to complaints within 20 working days. It took over three months to respond to Mrs B’s stage one complaint. This period coincided with Mrs B’s repeated efforts to get information on the progress with the annual review and a post-16 placement for C, so a timely response would have been particularly helpful. The failure to respond sooner was fault which caused Mrs B additional uncertainty and time and trouble.
26. I also note the Council directed Mrs B to complain to the school about her concerns regarding the section F provision in the EHC Plan. This was fault as the Council is responsible for ensuring section F provision is put in place.

Back to top

Action

27. I welcome the Council’s recognition of fault and the offer of a symbolic payment of £1600. However, I do not consider this adequately addresses the injustice caused to Mrs B and C at a crucial year in her education. So, I recommend the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• apologises to Mrs B and C;
• pays Mrs B (in addition to the £1600 already offered), £1000 for maths tuition for 20 weeks (January to May 2025) plus an additional £300 for the uncertainty caused by the failure to consider the science tuition or personal trainer; and
• provides a timetable for C’s reassessment.
28. The Department for Education issued an Improvement Notice against the Council in respect of its SEND service in April 2023. In response to this the Council produced an Accelerated Progress Plan to secure improvements. The Improvement Notice was lifted in August 2024, and the Council is still working through the progress plan. So, I do not see the need to make any further service improvements.
29. The Council has agreed to these recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman