Summary: Miss X complains the Council did not deal properly with her son’s special educational needs causing delay and avoidable distress. The Council is at fault because it did not properly complete an Education Health and Care Plan annual review properly, did not complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment properly and did not manage documents properly. Miss X suffered delay to receiving her son’s final EHCP and avoidable distress. The Council should apologise and pay Miss X £750.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Miss X, complains the Council has not dealt with her son’s special educational needs properly because it:
• Failed to meet statutory timescales to complete an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment (EHCNA).
• Lost documents she provided to it.
2. Miss X says she suffered delay and avoidable distress.

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 an injustice, 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(i), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss 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, guidance and policies

8. 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.

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)

Reassessments of EHC Plans

10. The council must decide whether to conduct a reassessment of a child or young person’s EHC Plan if this is requested by the child’s parent, the young person or their educational placement. The council may also decide to complete a reassessment if it thinks one is necessary.
11. The council can refuse a request for a reassessment if less than six months have passed since a previous EHC needs assessment. It can also refuse a request if it does not think it is necessary, for example because it does not feel a child or young person’s needs have changed significantly.
12. The council must tell the child’s parent or the young person whether it will complete an EHC needs reassessment within 15 calendar days of receiving the request. If the decision is not to reassess, the council must also provide information about the right to appeal that decision to the Tribunal.
13. If the council agrees to an EHC needs reassessment, it has 14 weeks to issue the final EHC Plan from the date it agreed to reassess to the date it issues the final amended EHC Plan.
     

What happened?

14. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
15. Miss X’s son Y, had an EHC Plan. An annual review was held in September 2023. Miss X chased the outcome of the annual review in February 2024 because she had not heard anything.
16. The Council actioned the annual review in April 2024 and send a notice of amendment relating to Y’s EHC Plan to Miss X.
17. Miss X asked for Y’s EHC Plan to be re-assessed. The Council agreed to re-assess Y in June 2024.
18. Miss X complained to the Council in September 2024 that the process of re-assessment was still not completed. The Council upheld Miss X’s complaint.

Analysis

19. The Council’s complaint responses accept that:
• The Council should have communicated whether it intended to maintain, amend. Or cease the EHC Plan within four weeks of the annual review meeting in September 2023. It apologised this did not happen.
• There was a delay informing Miss X of the Council’s decision to re-assess Y.
• There was a delay to the receipt of educational psychology advice.
• That some documents Miss X provided were not received properly.
20. The Council issued a final EHC Plan for Y in April 2025.
21. There were no changes to the EHC Plan and Y did not miss any educational provision.
22. The Council is at fault because:
• The September 2023 annual review was not actioned properly. This resulted in the Council agreeing to re-assess Y.
• The Council lost documents that Miss X sent to it about the annual review.
• Miss X asked the Council re-assess Y in April 2024. The Council took the decision to reassess in June 2024 but Miss X was not informed until July 2024.
• There was a delay to the re-assessment process relating to obtaining educational psychology advice.
• There has consequently been a delay in issuing Y’s final EHC Plan. This should have been issued in September 2024, but was delayed until April 2025.
23. Miss X suffered avoidable distress as well as time and trouble chasing the annual review and re-assessment outcomes.
24. In its response to this investigation, the Council has offered to apologise for the fault and pay Miss X £500 for the delays and £250 for stress and inconvenience caused. I consider this to be an appropriate personal remedy.

Back to top

Action

25. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council should take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X for the fault found We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Miss X a total of £750 in respect of avoidable distress and time and trouble.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman