Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan following a Tribunal in 2023 and annual review in 2024. She also complained about delays in securing provision from the Plan and direct payments. We found the Council was at fault for delays in finalising the Plans, direct payments and securing some of the provision. This caused Mrs X and her daughter distress and meant she missed out on some of the provision. The Council offered to pay Mrs X a remedy as well as pay a remedy to her daughter for the provision she missed.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council failed to:
• issue her daughter, Y’s updated EHC Plan following the May 2023 SEND Tribunal;
• secure all the provision that was ordered by the SEND Tribunal;
• issue Y’s final EHC Plan within the statutory timescales following the annual review from July 2024;
• consistently make direct payment into Y’s account to ensure her tutors were paid; and
• tell her who the new case worker was for Y after the previous one left the position.
2. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty. It also meant that between September 2023 and May 2024 she paid £2,266.44 for animal tuition herself, which put avoidable financial strain on the family. This was also only half of the entitlement Y should have received because this was all Mrs Y could afford.
3. Additionally, it meant that between August 2024 to April 2025 Mrs X funded Y’s activities herself, which put a significant financial strain on her. The Council topped up the account in April 2025, but before that day Mrs X did not know when she would get the money and worried she would have to take a loan out.
4. Mrs X would like the Council to issue Y’s final EHC Plan without delay and reimburse her the £2,266.44 she paid between September 2023 and May 2024. Mrs X would also like the Council to assign an independent person to oversee Y’s personal budget.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
7. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
8. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
9. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
10. 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

EHC Plan after a SEND Tribunal

13. There are time limits within which the Council must comply with the SEND Tribunal’s orders. These time limits are contained in Regulation 44 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014.
14. Where a SEND Tribunal orders the Council to amend the special educational provision set out in the EHC plan, the Council must issue the amended EHC plan within five weeks of the order being made.

Education, Health and Care Plans

15. A child with special educational needs may have an EHC plan. The plan 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 education or name a different school. Only the SEND Tribunal can do this.
16. The Council is responsible for securing the set out special educational provision for the child. This means making sure that arrangements set out in the EHC plan are put in place. We can look at complaints about this, such as where support set out in the EHC plan has not been provided, or where there have been delays in the process. These duties are non-delegable, and a council cannot discharge its duty by showing it tried but failed to put the support in place.

What happened

17. In mid-May 2023 the SEND Tribunal issued its order. The order told the Council what provision it should put in place for Y, and said the Council should appoint an independent person to manage Y’s specialist provision.
18. In early June Mrs X reminded the Council her preferred providers to deliver Y’s EHC Plan.
19. In early July 2023 the Council issued a final updated EHC Plan for Y following the SEND Tribunal.
20. Six days after the Council issued the EHC Plan, Mrs X again asked it for an educational personal budget for Y.
21. In September 2023 Mrs X complained to the Council failed to properly set up the personal budget arrangements as per the SEND Tribunal’s order from May 2023. Because of this she paid for some provision for Y between June 2023 and July 2023. The Council had agreed the personal budget to start from September 2023.
22. In late October 2023 the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. This response was six working days past the agreed deadline, for which the Council apologised. The Council did not uphold the rest of Mrs X’s complaint. It said that as she had requested the personal budget in July 2023, it would not cover the provision she had paid for in June 2023. Mrs X was not happy with the Council’s response and asked it to consider her complaint further.
23. The Council’s Panel agreed to fund some of the provision Mrs X requested with a personal budget; however, it did not agree to a private SALT provision as the Council’s services could provide this.
24. In January 2024 the Council responded to Mrs X’s request for further consideration. It agreed that it was responsible for the delay in issuing Y’s updated EHC Plan following the SEND Tribunal and in agreeing some of the provision she should have received. Because of this, the investigating officer recommended the Council should consider reimbursing Mrs X for provision from late June 2023 when the final EHC Plan should have been issued to late July 2023. Finally, the Council was to keep Mrs X updated about when the SALT provision would start for Y. As a result, the Council decided to pay Mrs X back £1,550.23 for the provision she had funded between June 2023 and July 2023.
25. In March 2024 Mrs X made another complaint to the Council. She said that it had not secured all the provision from Y’s EHC Plan. She said Y missed out on mentoring, science tuition, cooking and PE.
26. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint the following month. It said that some of the provision ended due to personal circumstances rather than because of the Council’s actions.
27. The Council held Ys annual review in early July 2024. Following the annual review the Council did not send a notification letter to Mrs X, nor did it send a draft or amended EHC Plan
28. In early September 2024 Mrs X complained to the Council. She said that it failed:
• to update the EHC Plan after the SEND Tribunal;
• to issue the final EHC Plan in time following the annual review from July 2024;
• to tell her who the new case worker for Y was after the last one left;
• secure the two hours per week of animal tuition for Y between September 2023 and May 2024. Mrs X could only afford to pay for 1 hour per week, and she spent £2,266.44. She asked the Council to repay her this money.
29. The Council responded to her complaint within a couple of weeks and said that that it issued the final EHC Plan after the SEND Tribunal in July 2023. The Council accepted it did not process the July 2024 annual review within the required timescale and said it would issue Y’s final amended EHC Plan by the end of September 2024. The Council also explained that Y’s case had no assigned officer and was being taken care of by a duty system. The Council also accepted it was delayed in organising finance for Y’s provision.
30. Mrs X was not happy with the Council’s response and asked it to consider it further.
31. In early October Mrs X chased the Council for the final EHC Plan the Council said it would issue by end of September.
32. The Council sent a draft EHC Plan to Mrs X in mid- October 2024. The following day Mrs X sent it back with her comments. She had to input all the EOTAS information and the directions the SEND Tribunal made in May 2023. She said that two of the providers (for PE and Maths) had been left out and she never got the Council’s response about their approval.
33. The Council sent its final response in late October 2024. It said that it was delayed with finalising Y’s EHC Plan and this was frustrating Mrs X’s appeal rights. It said that the service should update her when she can expect the final EHC Plan and check if there are payments for EOTAS that need backdating. The Council said it considered that financial remedy was not necessary and the apology it offered in September was sufficient.
34. Mrs X remained unhappy with the Council’s approach, and she asked the Ombudsman to investigate.
35. The Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan in mid-June 2025.
36. In February 2025 Mrs X sent a pre-action protocol to the Council indicating she would take it to pay her back for the provision she funded since September 2023, pay all outstanding invoices with Y’s other providers and restart the direct payments that had stopped in summer 2024.
37. The Council responded to Mrs X’s letter in the same month and accepted that it was at fault. It apologised and agreed to reimburse Mrs X for the animal tuition costs she covered between September 2023 and May 2024. The Council’s records show that two of the sessions Mrs X provided were outside of the term time, and so it had not refunded these. The Council decided to repay Mrs X £2,133.12 of the £2,266.44 she had spent. Additionally, it apologised for stopping the direct payments and assured Mrs X that it would pay all the outstanding invoices.
38. In June 2025 we made enquiries to the Council. In response the Council provided an update, evidence of the payments it made to Mrs X to repay her the provision she had covered between June 2023 to May 2024. In addition to reimbursing Mrs X’s expenses the Council offered to pay her a further £500 to recognise the effort she had gone through in pursuing her complaint as well as £1,200 to recognise the distress and uncertainty the delay in the annual review process caused her.

Analysis

EHC Plan following May 2023 SEND Tribunal and arranging provision

39. The legislation says the Council should have issued Y’s amended EHC plan within five weeks of the Tribunal’s decision; this should have been in late June 2023.
40. The Council should use this time to:
• prepare for implementation of the provision;
• make the amendments to sections B and F of the EHC plan; and
• re-issue the EHC plan.
41. The courts consider a council would fail to meet its statutory duties if it delayed securing the provision, listed as necessary in section F of a child’s EHC plan, beyond this five-week period.
42. The Council accepted it was at fault for issuing Y’s final EHC Plan late following the SEND Tribunal from May 2023. The final EHC Plan was not available until early July 2023. The Council apologised for the delay.
43. The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint explains that in July 2023 it had asked her to name her preferred providers that the Council would contact to secure the provision for Y. On balance, this suggests that between May and July 2023 the Council had not made attempts to secure the special educational provision that was requested by the SEND Tribunal. This is fault.
44. The fact that Y has an EHC plan means that she needs special educational support to be able to interact and achieve education to the best of her abilities. Y has missed direct support from the therapy and educational support she needed because of the faults described above.
45. The fact that Y missed out on essential support means that an already vulnerable young person has been further disadvantaged.
46. The Council agreed to repay Mrs X £1,550.23 for the provision she had funded in June 2023 and July 2023.
47. In early 2024 the Council agreed to pay Mrs X further £2,133.12 to reimburse her the provision she paid for Y between September 2023 and May 2024. We consider this partially remedies the injustice caused by the Council’s actions. This is because the provision Mrs X funded was only half of what was in Y’s EHC Plan, as this was the amount she could afford to fund. Because of this we consider the Council should pay Mrs X a further £500 to recognise the additional hour a week that Y missed out on between September 2023 and May 2024.

EHC Plan following the annual review from July 2024

48. The Council accepted that it was at fault for the delay in issuing Y’s final EHC Plan following the July 2024 annual review. This caused Mrs X and Y distress and uncertainty. It also meant that Y could not benefit from the provision of a Plan yet to be finalised.
49. The Council offered to pay £1,200 to Mrs X to remedy the uncertainty its actions caused her. We consider this remedy is in line with our guidance on remedies and suitably addresses the injustice the delay in finalising Y’s EHC Plan after the annual review in July 2024 caused to Mrs X and Y.

Communications about direct payments and case workers

50. In February 2024 the Council accepted that it was at fault for not continuing Y’s direct payments as it should have. This has likely caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty. The Council offered to pay Mrs X £500 for the distress pursuing her complaint has caused and we consider this remedy also suitably addresses the uncertainty the lack of consistency with the direct payments caused her. We also consider this includes any uncertainty Mrs X experienced because of not knowing who Y’s new case worker was.

Service improvements

51. In 2024 and early 2025 the Council has taken several improvements actions to streamline and improve its management of EHC Plan assessments and annual reviews. In early 2025 the Council updated the Ombudsman with the positive impact these actions had on the services it was delivering, and I consider the improvements the Council implemented sufficiently address the faults mentioned in this complaint. Because of this I have decided not to make any further service improvements on this occasion.

Back to top

Action

52. Within one month of the date of the final decision statement, the Council will:
• pay Mrs X £500 it offered for her efforts in pursuing her complaint;
• pay Mrs X £1,200 it offered for the uncertainty and distress the delay annual review from July 2024 caused her and Y; and
• pay Mrs X £500 to recognise the additional provision that Y missed out on between September 2023 and May 2024.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

54. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman