Summary: The Council delayed in issuing its decision to amend Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It also delayed in issuing the final (amended) Plan. These delays caused Mrs X uncertainty, frustration, delayed appeal rights, and financial loss. The Council should make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to remedy the outstanding injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed in amending her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review. She said the Council’s failings caused stress and uncertainty in that she was unable to sign contracts with educational providers, which risked leaving Y without provision. She said the delay also caused her direct financial loss because she had to pay for some of the provision that the Council should have secured for Y throughout 2025. She says the Council has not provided a remedy for her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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)
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 Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I discussed Mrs X’s complaint with her on the telephone.
6. Mrs 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

Law, policy and guidance

EHC Plans

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. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act).

Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS)

8. An EOTAS package is education or special educational provision delivered to a child or young person outside of a formal school placement.

Personal Budgets

9. A Personal Budget is the amount of money the council has identified it needs to pay to secure the special educational provision in a child or young person’s EHC Plan. One way that councils can deliver a Personal Budget is through direct payments. These are cash payments made to the child’s parent or the young person so they can commission the provision in the EHC Plan themselves.

Reviewing EHC Plans

10. 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 cease to maintain 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) 
11. 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

12. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
13. The Council issued an EHC Plan for Y, who has special educational needs (SEN), in mid-October 2023. This named the educational setting as a mainstream secondary school. Y was not able to attend. The school sought extra funding from the Council to enable Mrs X to arrange an educational package to be delivered to Y at home.
14. The school, acting on behalf of the Council, held an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan in mid-October 2024. At this meeting, Mrs X requested that the current informal funding arrangement be converted to a formal EOTAS package with an associated Personal Budget, as this would give her and Y certainty about the provision available. The school sent the paperwork from the review meeting to the Council in late October. The Council issued a draft (amended) Plan in late January 2025.
15. Mrs X complained to the Council in mid-February about:
• The delay in issuing the draft (amended) Plan;
• A lack of response to her request for a co-production meeting to discuss the draft;
• Section F (educational provision) of the draft was outdated. It did not reflect Y’s current provision (that is, it referred to provision in a school setting); and
• Y’s school had told her there were issues with Council funding meaning it could not agree the main component of Y’s educational package.
16. The Council replied at stage 1 of its complaints procedure within two days. It acknowledged and apologised for the delay in issuing the draft, and for its failure to respond to the request for a co-production meeting. The Council had arranged a meeting for the day the letter was sent. The Council acknowledged that Section F of the draft did not reflect recent reports from professionals, and assured Mrs X that funding remained in place. It upheld all aspects of her complaint and said it would remind staff of the need to adhere to both statutory and corporate timescales.
17. The Council issued two further draft (amended) Plans in early March and early April. The Council’s Complex Cases Panel considered Y’s case in late April and asked for further information about whether a special school would be a suitable setting for Y.
18. Mrs X escalated her complaint in early June. She complained that Y’s amended Plan had still not been finalised. As a result, Y’s educational provision for the school year beginning in September, and funding for that provision, remained unconfirmed and uncertain.
19. A Council officer called Mrs X in early July to discuss her complaint. The Council replied at stage 2 of the complaints procedure in mid-July. That response:
• Acknowledged the Council was at fault in having delayed the issuing of Y’s final (amended) Plan; and
• Upheld Mrs X’s complaint about the uncertainty around provision and funding for Y from September 2025 onwards. However, it said that the Council’s Complex Cases Panel had agreed Mrs X’s request for EOTAS in early June (after Mrs X had escalated her complaint to stage 2) and the Council had informed Mrs X of this in mid-June.
20. The Council issued a final (amended) EHC Plan for Y in mid-July 2025. Mrs X approached the Ombudsman in late July 2025. She said that, although the Council had acknowledged its faults, it had not offered a remedy beyond an apology.
21. Mrs X told me she had asked the Council to reimburse her for the financial losses she had incurred in paying for Y’s provision between January and July 2025, whilst awaiting a final (amended) EHC Plan.
22. During my investigation, in March 2026, the Council reimbursed Mrs X in full for her evidenced financial losses.

My findings

23. The Council had a duty to complete the review of Y’s EHC Plan, by issuing a decision to amend (or cease, or maintain) it, within 12 months of the previous EHC Plan being issued in October 2023. The Council should have commenced the next review cycle in time to issue the decision to amend in mid-October 2024. It did not issue that decision until late January 2025. This was a delay of over three months, and was fault.
24. The Council then had a further duty to issue the final amended EHC Plan within eight weeks of the decision to amend, which would have been mid-March. It did not do so until mid-July, a further delay of four months, which was fault.
25. The Council’s faults caused Mrs Y injustice in that:
• She was denied her right to appeal the content of Y’s plan throughout late 2024 and the first half of 2025;
• She suffered uncertainty as to whether suitable provision would be in place for Y from September 2025 onwards;
• She suffered frustration and time and trouble in having to chase the Council to issue a draft and final (amended) Plan, and in having to pursue her complaint as far as the Ombudsman; and
• She incurred financial losses in paying out-of-pocket for provision that would, if the Council had acted without fault, have been funded by the Council.
26. The Council has taken action to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X, both by apologising to her at stage 1 and 2 of the complaints process, and by reimbursing her financial losses during this investigation. However, I find that some injustice remains unremedied and I have made a recommendation to address this.

Back to top

Action

27. The Council has agreed to make Mrs X a symbolic payment of £350 in recognition of the outstanding impact of its faults on her, within one month of my final decision.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman