Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to hold an emergency annual review in February 2024 when his daughter’s education package broke down. As a result his daughter missed out on an education and the provision in her Education Health and Care Plan. We found the Council’s delay in holding a review and failure to provide any educational provision was fault. As was the poor communication and failure to respond to Mr X’s correspondence. These faults have caused Mr X and his daughter an injustice. The Council will apologise and make payments to Mr X and his daughter.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to hold an emergency annual review in February 2024 when his daughter’s education package broke down. As a result his daughter missed out on an education and the provision in her Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
2. Mr X also complained about delays, poor communication and a failure to respond to his correspondence or telephone calls.

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 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans

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. 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. 
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.
10. For young people moving from secondary school to a post-16 institution or apprenticeship, the council must review and amend the EHC Plan – including specifying the post-16 provision and naming the institution – by 31 March in the calendar year of the transfer.  
11. The annual review begins with consulting the young person or their parents and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. Following the review meeting the council must issue a decision to either 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) 
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. (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.
13. 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). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  

What happened here

14. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to our consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.
15. Mr X’s daughter, Miss Y would have started Year 11, her final year of secondary school in September 2023. However, she has not attended school for several years and her EHC Plan of August 2023 provided for a package of Education Other Than At School (EOTAS). The Council commissioned a tuition service to support Miss Y. Mr X says this worked well to begin with, but when it broke down in early 2024 he asked for an emergency EHC Plan review.
16. The Council says it has no record of Mr X’s request. However its case records show an internal email was sent to Miss Y’s case officer on 2 February 2024 regarding an emergency EHC Plan review. There is no record the Council took any further action at that stage and Mr X says he did not receive a response to his request.
17. In June 2024 the tuition service told the Council it could no longer meet the provision. The Council says the tuition company felt Miss Y no longer wished to engage with education. Mr X disputes this and says that rather than not wanting to engage, there were complex reasons preventing Miss X from doing so. He says the tuition service tried to review Miss Y’s EHC Plan but found it too complicated. Miss Y’s tuition ended on 14 June 2024.
18. The case officer contacted Mr X in August 2024 to discuss the situation. They arranged an annual review meeting for 12 September 2024. Although initially arranged as an annual review, it was agreed to change to a professionals meeting to discuss how to move forward with Miss Y’s education. Mr X prepared a detailed background document in advance of the meeting. He felt it would be inappropriate to go to a formal review meeting without understanding Miss Y’s needs and discussing her case with them first.
19. The meeting minutes note the Chair suggested arranging an annual review for two weeks’ time but Mr X did not consider this possible.
20. An annual review meeting was then arranged for 27 November 2024 but did not go ahead. The Council has no record of why or when this meeting was cancelled. Mr X says the meeting did not go ahead as officers informed them less than one hour before the meeting that Miss Y was required to attend. He says this had not been raised before and was an inappropriate request at such short notice given Miss Y’s diagnoses.
21. The Council arranged a further annual review meeting on 12 February 2025. The records show Mr X requested an EOTAS package through a personal budget. The Council issued a draft amended Plan on 14 February 2025.
22. Mr X was concerned the Council had removed sections of the Educational Psychologist’s assessment from the draft Plan without explanation or justification. He discussed his concerns with the case officer on 4 March 2025. Following this conversation the Council told Mr X it had arranged for a new tuition service to provide online tuition for Miss Y. It said was a statutory requirement that all young people between the age of 16 and 18 study maths and English. The Council said the tuition service would contact Mr X directly.
23. Mr X asked the Council not to proceed without further discussions with the family and professionals supporting Miss Y. He says he emailed and called the Council many times but did not receive a response and was not offered a meeting to discuss the draft Plan.
24. The Council issued an amended final EHC Plan on 14 April 2025 naming the type of placement as Post 16 SPI (Special Post-16 Institution). The Council said it had considered Mr X’s representations and considered a Post 16 SPI was more compatible with the provision of efficient instruction and training for Miss Y. As it had not secured a provision, it had secured interim tuition for Miss Y while it consulted placements.
25. Mr X disagreed with the EHC Plan. He considered the SPIs suggested were inappropriate and would not meet Miss Y’s needs. He asked for meeting to discuss the matter. The Council advised no further amendments could be made to the Plan and that interim education was in place until permanent provision could be found. The Council said it would not consider a personal budget as the provision in section F of the Plan could be met through a placement or tuition.
26. The Council’s case records say the tuition service withdrew in late May 2025 as Miss Y had not engaged. Mr X says they were not contacted by the tuition service.
27. A new case officer was appointed to Miss Y’s case in late May 2025. Mr X contacted them in early June 2025 requesting a meeting. He considered the EHC Plan issued in April was void as it was not properly prepared with due diligence and he wanted to discuss redrafting the Plan.
28. The officer apologised for the number of changes in case officers. They said they had reviewed the paperwork and were in the process of re-drafting Miss Y’s EHC Plan. The officer asked for further information regarding Mr X’s request for a personal budget so that this could be considered by senior officers.
29. Mr X asked the case officer not to re-write the Plan until he had provided information and they had met to discuss the revisions. The Council issued a draft amended EHC Plan on 9 June 2025.
30. Mr X responded to the draft Plan on 23 June 2025 and provided a proposed personal budget. Senior officers agreed the personal budget in principle and passed it to the Council’s High Cost Placement Panel to be ratified. The panel deferred a decision as it felt a case discussion was needed with a senior officer. The Council says there is no record of this discussion being held.
31. The panel considered the personal budget again in early August 2025 and requested more information regarding Miss Y’s health needs and the costings of section F of the EHC Plan.

Complaints

32. In January 2025 Mr X made a formal complaint about the failure to hold an emergency EHC Plan review or to ensure Miss Y had access to an education via a personal budget when the tuition service withdrew in June 2024. Mr X complained there had been repeated changes of staff and that almost a year after he requested the emergency review this had still not taken place.
33. Mr X asked the Council to provide immediate funding via a personal budget or other appropriate means for specialist support, advice, education and training. He also asked the Council to allocate an appropriately skilled and experienced SEND lead officer and case worker to Miss Y’s case to complete the review.
34. Mr X chased the Council for a response in early March 2025. The Council responded on 22 April 2025. It apologised for the delay in arranging the annual review and that it had not responded to Mr X’s request for an early review in a timely manner. The Council also acknowledged that communication with the SEND service was not always satisfactory and again apologised Mr X had not received timely responses.
35. The Council noted the review process allowed Mr X and Miss Y to make representations about the content of the Plan and to request a particular setting. It advised the Council would always consider Mr X’s placement wishes but could also consider and consult with alternative settings which might be suitable.
36. In addition the Council said it was doing everything it could to address the issues with its current service and ensure that unnecessary delays are minimised and communication improved.
37. Mr X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for his complaint to be considered further. He complained that over 15 months after he had requested an emergency review Miss Y still did not have any appropriate educational provision. He again requested an EOTAS package managed through a personal budget as the Council had failed to find an appropriate provider.
38. The Council responded at stage two of its complaint process on 21 July 2025 and again apologised for the lack of communication with the SEND service and the allocated casework officer. It noted the tuition service had supported Miss Y between August 2023 and June 2024. And that a social care report for the annual review in November 2024 detailed the difficulties Miss Y and the family were experiencing and indicated training and education may not have been Miss Y’s priority.
39. The Council also noted no professional evidence was provided for the annual review in February 2025 to make changes to the EHC Plan. It said the Council considered the changes Mr X requested. The casework officer also sought to arrange interim tuition, but Mr X said Miss Y would not engage. The Council said it would continue to work with Mr X to secure an appropriate placement for Miss Y.
40. In relation to Mr X’s request for a personal budget, the Council said this was not agreed as the provision outlined in section F could be met at an identified setting and there were no particular therapies outlined in Miss Y’s EHC Plan. The Council also reminded Mr X of the right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal if he did not agree with the content of the Plan or type of setting named.
41. The Council said tuition had been available for Miss Y in the last month. This was for eight hours a week, with four hours allocated to maths and four hours for English. Miss Y had not taken up this offer.
42. Mr X remains unhappy and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate his concerns. Mr X says he was unaware the Council had commissioned eight hours tuition and had not been contacted by the tuition company. He says he had also made it clear to the Council that online tuition would not work.
43. In response to our enquiries the Council says the annual review in February 2025 was Miss Y’s phase transfer review. It obtained Mr X and Miss Y’s wishes for her education moving forward and issued an amended EHC Plan on 14 April 2025. The Plan was then amended without a review and Mr X requested a personal budget.
44. The Council acknowledges the tuition service made it aware in June 2024 that it could no longer meet the provision. And that it failed to put educational provision in place from June 2024 until March 2025. It says this was due to the annual review being changed to a professionals meeting and because Miss Y’s aspirations for her education moving forward were not clear.
45. The Council says it secured a new tuition provider on 5 March 2025. The provider then withdrew their offer having made multiple attempts to contact Mr X by telephone and email and not received a response.
46. In addition the Council acknowledges Miss Y had various case officers during the period 2024/2025 and that these changes led to delays and miscommunication within the SEN team. It apologises for these delays and the lack of educational provision provided to Miss Y.

Analysis

47. The Council’s failure to complete an annual review and issue a final EHC Plan in 2024 is fault. The documentation shows the Council missed several opportunities and deadlines for doing so.
48. Notwithstanding Mr X’s request for an emergency review in February 2024, the Council should, as a minimum, have arranged an annual review within 12 months of the previous EHC Plan, issued in early August 2023. In addition, given Miss Y’s age and the stage of her school career, there was an extra requirement to complete a phase transfer. The Council should have completed a phase transfer and made any appropriate amendments by 31 March 2024.
49. The Council did not hold an annual review until February 2025 and did not issue an amended final EHC Plan until April 2025.
50. The Ombudsman takes the view that councils must abide by the statutory and legislative requirements under the SEN legislation and guidance. The Council’s failure to do so in this instance is fault.
51. The delay in completing the review and in issuing a final EHC Plan caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty and put him to unnecessary time and trouble. I consider the Council should make a symbolic payment to recognise the frustration and distress Mr X experienced.
52. The Council’s failure to ensure Miss Y received the special educational provision when the tuition service withdrew in June 2024 is also fault. The Council acknowledges it did not provide any educational provision between June 2024 and March 2025 but has not sought to remedy this. It says tuition was available between March 2025 and May 2025.
53. The Council says the tuition service withdrew in May 2025 as Mr X had not responded to its emails or telephone calls to arrange provision. However Mr X says he was not contacted by the tuition service and had repeatedly told the Council that online tuition was not accessible for Miss Y.
54. I have not received any evidence of the tuition service’s attempts to contact Mr X or its correspondence with the Council. Nor have I received any evidence of how the Council considered whether online tuition was appropriate. In addition, there is no evidence the Council discussed the provision with Mr X or sought alternative arrangements to meet Miss Y’s needs. I also note that the referral to the original tuition service requests in person tuition, rather than online.
55. Based on the documentation available I am not persuaded that educational provision was available and accessible to Miss Y between March and May 2025. But rather that Miss Y did not receive the special educational provision in her EHC Plans between June 2024 and the end of the academic year in July 2025.
56. When a young person has missed education as a result of fault by the Council, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment to acknowledge the education they have missed and help them to catch up.
57. In the circumstances I consider a payment of £4,500 for the failure to provide an appropriate education between June 2024 and July 2025 would be appropriate.
58. Mr X completed the Council’s complaint process in August 2025 so I have not considered any missed provision in the following academic year as this falls outside his complaint.
59. The Council’s poor communication and failure to respond to Mr X’s correspondence is also fault and has added to Mr X’s frustration and distress.
60. We have made service improvement recommendations and the Council has told us the action it has taken in similar cases investigated by the Ombudsman. I do not therefore intend to make further recommendations for service improvements here.

Back to top

Action

61. The Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X and Miss Y for the delays in the EHC Plan review process and not providing educational provision between June 2024 and July 2025, and the distress and frustration this caused. 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 Y £4,500 to recognise her missed education between June 2024 and July 2025;
• pay Mr X £400 to recognise the frustration, distress and uncertainty the delays in the EHC review process and poor communication caused him.
62. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman