Summary: Miss Y complained that the Council delayed completing the annual review process for her son, B’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. We found the Council at fault and it has agreed to pay Miss Y £500 in recognition of the avoidable stress and uncertainty.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complained that Hertfordshire County Council (the Council) delayed issuing her son, B’s, amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after an annual review. She says the Council failed to issue the amended plan within the statutory time limits, causing stress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future 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(1), 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated events from the time of the annual review in January 2024 until the Council completed its complaint process in March 2025.
7. I have not investigated the previous review from 2023 as this falls outside our 12-month time limit for complaints and there are no good reasons to exercise our discretion to investigate this period.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss Y 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

EHC Plans and annual reviews

10. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an 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. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this.
11. 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 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) 
12. 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

13. Miss Y’s son, B, has an EHC Plan. The Council held an annual review meeting for B’s Plan in January 2024. Following this meeting, the Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCo) at his school sent the amended plan and review report to the Council. However, the Council did not issue a decision about whether it would amend, maintain or cease the Plan within the statutory four-week period.
14. There was no further communication from the Council about the outcome of the review until December 2024. Then the SENCo chased the Council for the final version of the Plan. The Council responded by sending what it said was the final EHC Plan, but did not include changes that had been agreed at the review meeting.
15. Miss Y complained to the Council in December 2024. The Council wrote to her in January 2025, apologising for the delays and confirming its decision to amend the Plan. Miss Y raised a stage two complaint in January 2025 and received a response in February 2025.
16. The Council issued the final amended EHC Plan in January 2025, almost a year after the review meeting. The Plan increased B’s support by 15 minutes per week.

Analysis

17. The Council held the annual review within the statutory timeframe. However, it failed to issue a decision to amend, maintain or cease the Plan within four weeks of the meeting, as required by law. This delay was fault and caused Miss Y and B uncertainty.
18. The SENCo chased the Council in December 2024, nearly eleven months after the review meeting, which highlights the lack of communication and progress. When the Council did respond, it failed to include agreed changes in the version of the Plan it sent, causing confusion and further delay.
19. The Council issued the final amended EHC Plan almost a year after the review meeting and well outside the statutory timescales. The delay caused Miss Y and B avoidable stress and uncertainty. As they did not have the updated Plan they could not confirm what changes had been made, or how these changes may impact B.
20. The Council refers to its service Improvement Plan in its complaint response, which followed a Special Educational Needs inspection by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and Ofsted. I am satisfied there is no need for additional service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Action

21. In recognition of the injustice caused to Miss Y and B, within one month of the final decision, the Council should:
• Apologise to Miss Y and B in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology;
• Pay Miss Y, on behalf of B, £500 in recognition of the avoidable stress and uncertainty.
22. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman