Summary: The Council failed to follow the timescales in the code of practice following an annual review of an education, health and care plan, failed to put in place provision in section F and delayed responding to a complaint. That delayed Mrs X’s appeal rights, caused her distress and led to her son missing out on special educational needs provision. An apology, payment to Mrs X and introduction of a process for monitoring complaint responses is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complained the Council:
• placed her son in an unsuitable placement which broke down as it had not updated her son’s education, health and care plan (EHC Plan);
• failed to issue a final EHC Plan following an annual review in February 2024;
• failed to put in place provision in section F of her son’s EHC Plan from January 2024;
• failed to hold an emergency annual review when she asked for one to address a change in circumstances;
• failed to communicate with her or progress her son’s next placement despite an offer from her chosen placement (placement B);
• delayed responding to her complaint;
• failed to seek professional advice when amending the EHC Plan; and
• failed to ensure the content of the EHC Plan was legally compliant.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s actions meant her son missed out on special educational needs provision, she has experienced distress and had her appeal rights delayed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a Council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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 have and have not investigated

9. I am not investigating Mrs X’s concerns about the Council placing her son in an unsuitable placement because it had not updated the EHC Plan. That is because this relates to events in 2022/2023, which is more than 12 months before the complaint to the Ombudsman. I see no reason why Mrs X could not have complained to the Ombudsman about those issues within 12 months.
10. I am also not investigating Mrs X’s concerns about the content of the EHC Plan. That is because the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider this part of the complaint as it relates to matters for which Mrs X has a right of appeal now the Council has issued a final EHC Plan. For the same reason I am not investigating Mrs X’s concerns about the failure to seek professional advice when drawing up the EHC Plan as that also relates to the content of the EHC Plan.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs X's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
12. Mrs X and the organisation 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

Special educational needs

13. A child with special educational needs (SEN) may have an EHC Plan. The EHC Plan sets out the child's educational needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The council is responsible for making sure arrangements in the EHC Plan are put in place and reviewed each year.
14. Parents have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal if they disagree with the special educational provision, the school named in their child's EHC Plan, or the fact no school or other provider is named.
15. The council has a duty to secure the special educational provision in an EHC Plan for the child or young person (Section 42 Children and Families Act).
16. Councils must review EHC Plans as a minimum every 12 months. (SEND code of practice paragraphs 9.166 and 9.186)
17. Within four weeks of a review meeting, a council must notify the child's parent(s)/ guardian(s) of its decision to maintain, amend or discontinue the EHC Plan. (SEND code of practice paragraph 9.176)
18. Where a Council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, it should start the process of amendment "without delay". The law says it must send the child's parent(s)/guardian(s) 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. (SEND code paragraphs 9.176 and 9.194)
19. Following comments from the child's parent(s)/guardian(s), if a Council decides to continue to make amendments, it must issue the amended EHC Plan as soon as practicable and within eight weeks of the date it sent the proposed amendments to the parent(s)/guardian(s). (SEND code of practice paragraph 9.196)

What happened - EHC Plan issues

20. Mrs X’s son has special educational needs and an EHC Plan. The Council issued an EHC Plan naming school A, a specialist post 16 institute, on 13 July 2023.
21. An annual review of the EHC Plan took place on 20 February 2024. School A sent the Council the paperwork on 23 February.
22. Mrs X chased the Council for the annual review paperwork on 15 March. When Mrs X contacted the Council again on 26 March she said school A was not providing her son with any education and had not offered anything to start until September 2024. The Council contacted school A to ask it to put provision in place. At a meeting on 18 April school A told the Council it could not meet Mrs X’s son’s needs either now or from September 2024. Mrs X asked the Council to arrange a meeting and provide her with details of colleges to consider.
23. The Council discussed the next steps with Mrs X on 17 May. Mrs X told the Council she did not consider her son’s EHC Plan reflected his current needs and needed updating. The Council subsequently sent Mrs X an amendment notice.
24. Mrs X chased the Council for the draft EHC Plan on 17 June. The Council sent Mrs X a draft EHC Plan on 19 June and said it would consult possible education providers.
25. In October 2024 Mrs X asked the Council to hold an emergency annual review as her son needed a final EHC Plan. The Council said it did not need to do that as it was in the process of amending the EHC Plan. The Council confirmed it would consult Mrs X’s preferred placement (placement B).
26. On 27 November the Council identified that placement B was not on the register of schools and colleges and was not a section 41 school. The Council therefore told Mrs X it could not name placement B in her son’s EHC Plan. The Council said though there was a training provider which could provide education at placement B and it would consult it.
27. In January 2025 the Council received confirmation from the training provider operating from placement B that it could arrange an apprenticeship for Mrs X’s son but he would need to identify a suitable employer. The Council told Mrs X that at the beginning of February.
28. Mrs X’s representative chased the Council about the possibility of a place at placement B in February 2025. The Council explained the options available.
29. There is no evidence of any further activity on the case until 30 September when the Council held another annual review. The Council agreed to consult placement B. By that time placement B was registered as an educational establishment. After asking the Council for further information placement B confirmed it could offer Mrs X’s son a place.
30. The Council’s high cost placement panel considered the request for placement B in December. The placement panel deferred the decision to allow the Council to consult other potential providers. The Council told Mrs X that. In response Mrs X told the Council the options it was considering other than placement B were not appropriate for her son. Mrs X asked the Council to consult a college. Mrs X also asked the Council to issue an EHC Plan.
31. When none of the other provisions could offer Mrs X’s son a place the Council returned the case to the high cost placement panel in January 2026. The panel approved placement B for one year. The Council issued a final EHC Plan naming placement B on 8 January 2026. Placement B subsequently withdrew the offer of a place and the Council issued a further final EHC Plan in February 2026 naming a type of provision in section I.

What happened - complaint process

32. Mrs X put in a complaint on 25 October 2024. Mrs X repeatedly chased the Council for a response, which it issued on 9 July 2025. The Council acknowledged the provision in Mrs X’s son’s EHC Plan had not been made available to him and offered £750 per term for three academic terms, totalling £2,250 plus an additional £250 to recognise the anxiety and frustration she had experienced.

Analysis

33. Mrs X says the Council failed to issue a final EHC Plan following the annual review in February 2024. Mrs X says that meant her son’s EHC Plan was out of date and it delayed her right of appeal.
34. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the annual review took place on 20 February 2024. I set out in paragraphs 17-19 what the code of practice says about the timescales the Council must adhere to following an annual review. I am satisfied the Council did not comply with those timescales either in issuing an amendment notice or in issuing a final EHC Plan. I am concerned about that because Mrs X had made clear she felt her son’s EHC Plan was out of date and the Council had agreed to make amendments in May 2024. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council did not issue a final EHC Plan until 8 January 2026, after a further annual review had taken place. That is a considerable delay and is fault. That delayed Mrs X’s right of appeal.
35. I am also satisfied the Council delayed holding the annual review in 2025. The code of practice is clear an annual review must take place within 12 months of the previous annual review. However, the Council did not hold the annual review until September 2025. That is also fault. That again contributed to the delay issuing a final EHC Plan and delayed Mrs X’s right of appeal.
36. The Council accepts it failed to put in place provision in Mrs X’s son’s EHC Plan after school A told the Council it could no longer meet his needs. That was in April 2024. However, I am satisfied Mrs X’s son had stopped attending school A at the end of January 2024. I appreciate school A may not have told the Council and therefore the Council did not know Mrs X’s son was not attending school until it received the annual review paperwork in February 2024. Nevertheless, the Council is responsible for ensuring the provision in the EHC Plan is in place. As I am satisfied Mrs X’s son did not receive any provision in his EHC Plan from the beginning of February 2024 I consider the Council at fault from that point.
37. In addition, it is also clear the EHC Plan issued in January 2026 included extra provision for Mrs X’s son in section F. As the Council should have issued that EHC Plan in 2024 I therefore consider Mrs X’s son likely missed out on extra special educational needs provision as well as the provision in his EHC Plan at the time.
38. The Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to consider any failure to put in place provision once the Council has issued a final EHC Plan. That is because Mrs X had a right of appeal about the content in the EHC Plan and the education provision named in section I. I can therefore only recommend a remedy for the period February 2024-7 January 2026. That equates to a little over five terms of missed SEN provision.
39. The Council has offered a financial remedy of £750 for three terms. The Ombudsman normally recommends an amount between £900 and £2,400 per term for missed special educational needs provision and education. Taking into account Mrs X’s son’s age, the provision in his EHC Plan and the fact he had said he wanted to pursue employment rather than education, I consider an appropriate remedy would be £900 per term. That equates to a remedy of £4,800 for the period I am investigating. Although I recognise school A sent home work for maths and english for Mrs X son to complete there is no evidence any of his SEN provision was in place. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
40. Mrs X says the Council failed to hold an emergency annual review when she asked it to because of a change in circumstances. I am satisfied the Council addressed that in October 2024 when it told Mrs X it did not consider an emergency annual review appropriate given it was amending the EHC Plan. I am therefore satisfied the Council considered Mrs X’s request and explained why it did not consider it necessary. That is not fault. I understand Mrs X’s concern though given the Council then did not issue a final EHC Plan until January 2026, for which I have criticised it.
41. Mrs X says the Council failed to communicate with her or progress her son’s next placement despite an offer from placement B.
42. The evidence I have seen shows that there were a lot of communications between Mrs X and the Council. However, there were also periods where the Council failed to keep Mrs X up-to-date with what was happening. That is particularly the case between February and September 2025. That resulted in Mrs X having to repeatedly chase the Council. That is fault.
43. In terms of placement B, I am satisfied the Council explained to Mrs X it could not name that placement in the EHC Plan as it was not a registered educational provider until September 2025. That is not fault.
44. I am satisfied once the Council became aware placement B was registered as an education provider it consulted it. I appreciate there was a delay between October 2025 and the Council agreeing to the placement in January 2026. I am satisfied though that was because the Council’s panel wanted to explore other options before naming an independent provider. That is a decision the panel was entitled to reach and is not one I can comment on. I am also satisfied though by February 2026 the placement had withdrawn its offer of a place. I am satisfied the Council communicated that promptly to Mrs X. I therefore have no grounds to criticise it in relation to this part of the complaint.
45. The Council accepts it delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaint. The documentary evidence shows there was a considerable delay between Mrs X putting in her complaint in October 2024 and the Council’s complaint response in July 2025. The Council has not offered any reason for the delay. The delay is fault. That delay meant Mrs X had to go to time and trouble to pursue her complaint and the delay likely caused her distress. I recommended the Council provide evidence to the Ombudsman to show how it intends to monitor complaints to ensure they are responded to within the Council’s published timescales. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
46. Given the lengthy delays in the complaint process and the delay issuing the final EHC Plan, which also delayed Mrs X’s right of appeal, I considered it appropriate to recommend a further financial remedy. I recommended the Council apologise to Mrs X and pay her extra £300. That makes a total financial remedy of £5,100. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.
47. I do not make any recommendation for any procedural remedies for the EHC Plan issues. That is because I am satisfied the Council has an improvement plan in place to address issues with its SEN department. That includes work around improving the Council’s management of the EHC review process.

Back to top

Action

48. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mrs X and her son for the distress and frustration they experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mrs X £5,100.
49. Within three months of my decision the Council should provide evidence to the Ombudsman to show how it intends to monitor complaints to ensure they are responded to within the Council’s published timescales.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

51. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will take action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman