Summary: The Council significantly delayed issuing a final amended Education, Health and Care Plan for Ms X’s child, Y. Their communication with Ms X was also poor. This caused injustice to Y’s mother, Ms X, in the form of delayed appeal rights and frustration. It caused Y the injustice of lost therapeutic provision and uncertainty about whether other support should have been offered. The Council agreed to make a payment to Ms X to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X’s child, Y, has special educational needs. Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her child following annual reviews in 2023 and 2024. She said she was unable to appeal the content of the amended Plan and her child missed out on educational and therapeutic provision. She wants the Council to provide suitable compensation for the injustice caused by the delays.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I discussed the complaint with Ms X on the telephone.
8. Ms 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, policy and guidance

EHC Plan 

9. 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 SEND Tribunal or the council can do this. 

Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS)

10. An EOTAS package is education or special educational provision delivered to a child or young person outside of a formal school placement.

Maintaining the EHC Plan

11. 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)  
12. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

Personal Budgets

13. A Personal Budget is the amount of money the council has identified it needs to pay to secure the provision in a child or young person’s EHC Plan. One way that councils can deliver a Personal Budget is through direct payments. These are cash payments made to the child’s parent or the young person so they can commission the provision in the EHC Plan themselves.
14. The council’s duty to secure or arrange provision specified in EHC Plans is only discharged through a direct payment when the provision has been acquired for, or on behalf of, the child’s parent or the young person

Reviewing EHC Plans

15. 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 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) 
16. 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

17. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology. I have investigated events from November 2023 to August 2025. Information about events before that are included to provide background only.
18. The Council issued a final EHC Plan for Y in January 2022. This Plan named a mainstream school as the educational setting and included provision in the form of additional support within the classroom, occupational therapy (OT) and speech and language therapy (SALT). It also named the mainstream high school Y would transition to in September 2022.
19. Y started at the high school in September 2022 but struggled to attend and did not do so from January 2023 onwards. The Council carried out an emergency review of Y’s Plan and Y was removed from the school roll in February 2023. The Council did not issue an amended EHC Plan following the emergency review meeting. The Council provided Y with Education Otherwise Than at School (EOTAS) throughout 2023 in the form of Maths, English and Science tuition.
20. The Council carried out another annual review of Y’s Plan in November 2023. Ms X said that EOTAS was meeting Y’s educational needs and they both wished it to continue. Ms X had previously asked for a direct payment to arrange OT and SALT herself but had been unable to find suitable therapists and so asked the Council to resume this responsibility.
21. The Council issued a decision to amend the Plan and issued a draft amended Plan in December 2023. This draft included provision in the form of EOTAS, OT and SALT. The Council had twelve weeks from the date of the annual review to issue a final amended Plan but it did not produce one. The Council continued to provide EOTAS for Y during 2024.
22. In November 2024, Ms X complained to the Council that it had not:
• Formally updated Y’s EHC Plan since January 2022;
• secured OT and SALT;
• provided access to careers advice; and
• responded to her safeguarding concerns about the laptop it had provided to Y.
23. She also complained the Council had offered mentoring and sports provision then withdrawn these without explanation. She said communication with the SEND team had been poor, with her caseworker changing repeatedly.
24. The Council responded in December. It acknowledged and apologised that:
• It had failed to issue a final amended Plan for Y following the draft Plan issued in December 2023.
• It had not arranged SALT and OT when Ms X asked it to in November 2023. The Council said it would secure this provision by January 2025.
• It had not carried out an annual review for Y in 2024. It committed to doing so.
• Regarding the SEND team’s communication and change of caseworkers, it said the Council had a plan in place to address responsiveness to enquiries and a focus on recruiting permanent staff.
25. The Council also said that mentoring provision had been agreed in July 2024, but that Y had only attended one session. It said that it was up to parents to monitor the use of laptops loaned to children by the Council, and that it had updated the loan form to make this clear. Finally, it said that Y could be referred for careers guidance in the autumn term of year 9. Y was already in year 9 at that time.
26. The Council carried out another annual review of Y’s Plan in December 2024.
27. There was further correspondence between Ms X and the Council following the stage one complaint response. Ms X asked to escalate her complaint to stage two in February 2025.
28. The Council responded in March 2025. It acknowledged that it had not issued a draft amended Plan for Y following the December 2024 review meeting and said it would do so. It said that Ms X’s new caseworker had responded to all communications from her within five working days and the Council understood Ms X was pleased with the service it was now providing.
29. The Council said it had made an error in its stage one complaint response. That response said it had agreed Ms X’s request for a personal budget for mentoring in July 2024, but that was not the case.
30. The Council also said:
• Both SALT and OT had been arranged and were due to start in February 2025.
• In response to Ms X’s concerns about the use of the laptop, it was considering her request for a Chromebook, and
• It would make a referral to the careers service, as Y was already in year 9.
31. The Council issued another draft amended Plan for Y in March 2025. It issued three further drafts in June and July, and a final amended Plan in August 2025. The final Plan included EOTAS provision for 18 hours of tuition per week, five hours of mentoring and two hours of football per week, OT, an increased amount of SALT, and a single session with a careers advisor.

Analysis

Delay in issuing amended EHC Plans

32. The Council had a duty to issue a decision to amend, maintain, or cease to maintain Y’s EHC Plan within four weeks of the annual review meeting of November 2023. It fulfilled this duty by issuing a decision notice and a draft amended EHC Plan in December 2023. The Council then had a further to duty to issue the final amended EHC Plan within eight weeks of that decision. It did not do so, which was fault. In fact, it did not finalise the amended Plan at all. This caused Ms Y injustice in that she was denied her right to appeal the content of Y’s plan throughout the whole of 2024 and faced uncertainty over what provision Y was entitled to.
33. When Ms X brought this to the Council’s attention in November 2024, it arranged another annual review meeting for December. The Council issued another decision to amend the plan in March 2025. It then issued several draft versions of Y’s Plan, before issuing a final amended Plan in August 2025. This further delay compounded the injustice already caused to Ms X in that she was denied her right of appeal throughout most of 2025.
34. I will recommend a remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X.
35. Educational provision in the form of EOTAS was in place for Y throughout 2024 and 2025. However, they did miss out on other provision which I consider in more detail below.

Lack of therapy provision

36. In its responses to Ms X’s complaints, the Council acknowledged that it had failed to secure SALT and OT provision for Y when it was under a duty to do so from November 2023. The Council did not secure these therapies for Y until February 2025. As a result, Y missed out on four terms of therapeutic provision. I have recommended a remedy for that injustice.
37. I have seen evidence that Y was, fortunately, able to achieve their educational outcomes without these therapies being secured.

Lack of mentoring, sports provision and careers guidance

38. Ms X complained the Council had offered mentoring and sports provision then withdrawn these without explanation. As the Council did not update Y’s EHC Plan during this period, this provision was not included in Section F of Y’s EHC Plan until August 2025.
39. The Council initially said that it had withdrawn mentoring support because Y had only attended one session; it later said that it had not been approved mentoring support. It did not respond to Ms X’s complaint about a lack of sports provision. The Council communications about this were confusing and this was fault. This caused Miss X frustration and caused Y uncertainty as to whether this provision should have been available before August 2025.
40. The Council was also at fault in the way it communicated with Ms X about careers advice for Y. It said in its stage one complaint response that it could offer it to Y in the autumn term of year 9, but that was the term and year that Y was already in. By the time the Council included careers guidance in the amended EHC Plan issued in August 2025, Y was entering year 10. This delay was fault and meant Y did not receive this support as quickly as they should have.

Safeguarding concerns connected with Council-loaned laptop

41. I have seen no evidence that the Council failed to adequately safeguard Y in relation to the Council-loaned laptop. I welcome the Council’s decision to update its policy regarding the loan of laptops to children as part of their educational provision, but it was not at fault for saying that it was Ms X’s responsibility to monitor Y’s usage of the laptop.

Poor communication with the SEND team and inconsistency of caseworkers

42. The Council accepted it was at fault regarding frequent changes of caseworker for Ms X and Y and regarding its communications with Ms X. These faults caused Ms X the injustice of frustration and caused her time and trouble in pursuing her concerns and complaints with the Ombudsman, for which I have recommended a remedy.
43. The Ombudsman has made recommendations to the Council for service improvements in relation to the same matters in several recent cases. There would not be value in duplicating these recommendations. As a result, I will not recommend further service improvements at this time. Instead, we will monitor the Council’s progress via our casework.

Back to top

Action

44. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to pay Ms X:
1. £600 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused to Ms X by the Council’s faults. This includes consideration of her lost opportunity to appeal to the SEND Tribunal for a total of 18 months, the uncertainty over Y’s provision, the frustration caused by the Council’s poor communication and inconsistency of caseworkers, and the emotional and financial stress caused by the Council’s faults.
2. £1000, for the benefit of Y, to acknowledge the impact of lost OT and SALT provision between November 2023 and February 2025 (equal to four terms);
3. £200, for the benefit of Y, to acknowledge the impact of the additional uncertainty about whether mentoring and sports provision should have been included in their EOTAS package.
45. The Council should also make an apology to Y in recognition that careers guidance should have been offered to them sooner.
46. 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.
47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman