Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s handling of her child’s Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision. The Council has already apologised and offered a remedy payment to Ms X for the injustice caused by its faults. There is nothing more we could achieve by investigating further.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to follow the statutory process for annual reviews of Education, Health and Care EHC) plans in relation to her child, Y, in the following ways:

• to issue the updated and amended EHC plan following annual review;
• to provide full-time education (including PE);
• to provide one-to-one support;
• to provide Occupational Therapy (OT) support.

2. Ms X complains about having to constantly chase the Council to act. She says it has consulted education placements using an outdated EHC plan. She has been unable to work and wants the Council to compensate her for lost earnings and pension.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

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. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Y has an EHC plan which was due for annual review in May 2025.
8. Councils must review and amend an EHC Plan in enough time before to a child or young person moved between key phases of education. This allows planning for and, where necessary, commissioning of support and provision at the new institution. The review and any amendments must be completed by 15 February in the calendar year in which the child is due to transfer into or between school phases. The key transfers include primary school to secondary school.

Failure to issue an updated and amended EHC plan following review

9. The Council started the phase transfer review process for Y’s EHC plan in late December 2024. The review meeting was held on 10 January 2025, and the Notice of Amendment was sent to Ms X on 30 January 2025, where it proposed no change to Y’s existing education placement of Education Other Than At School (EOTAS). The Council issued the final EHC plan following phase transfer review to Ms X on 14 February 2025 – this named preferred different school placement rather than EOTAS. This EHC plan did not include any amendments to other parts.
10. The Council subsequently completed the annual review of Y’s EHC plan and issued an amended final EHC plan on 20 February 2025, which named the preferred placement and included the amendments from Ms X and those discussed at review.
11. The Council apologised for the five-day delay in issuing an amended EHC plan to Ms X and for the impact this had on her and Y. This was an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X and Y by the delay. It would not be proportionate or an effective use of our limited resources to investigate this complaint in these circumstances.

Failure to provide full time education and one-to-one support

12. The Council has explained that the one-to-one provision Y received through EOTAS is generally more intensive. As a result, the number of provision hours offered is typically less when compared to full-time attendance at a school placement.
13. The Council also confirmed it was in the process of considering Ms X’s request for additional weekly support for Y while they transition to their secondary school placement. There is nothing more we could achieve by investigating this element of Ms X’s complaint further.

Lack of OT support

14. The Council said was unable to immediately identify and commission a replacement therapist to deliver OT provision when Ms X notified it Y was no longer able to engage with the existing OT provider in mid-December 2024.
15. The Council explained it was in the process of consulting other OT providers but received insufficient notice to identify an alternative provider for the start of the Spring term.
16. The Council has apologised for delay in issuing an amended EHC plan and for the time and trouble Ms X spent in bringing her concerns to its attention. It has offered Ms X a remedy payment of £500 in recognition of the impact on Ms X and Y. This is a reasonable remedy given the fault the Council has acknowledged. We are unlikely to achieve anything more and further investigation is therefore not warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

17. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because the Council has already investigated and offered appropriate remedies for the injustice caused by the faults it identified. There is nothing more we could add by investigating the matter further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman