Summary: Mrs X complained about the way the Council dealt with her son, Y’s education. The Council was at fault for delaying in completing an annual review and poor communication and complaint handling. This caused Mrs X and Y frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the way the Council dealt with her son, Y’s education. She says the Council failed to;
1. amend Y’s EHC plan following an annual review;
2. consult with a school she requested;
3. arrange alternative education for Y;
4. respond to her complaint; and
5. communicated poorly with her by ignoring her contacts.
2. Mrs X says this has caused her and her family significant distress. She says that Y has now been out of education since September 2024, and so is now behind in his education and is worried about his future because of this. Mrs X says this has also impacted on Y’s wellbeing. She also expressed she has taken significant time and trouble in chasing the Council for a response to her complaint. Mrs X says the matter has also caused the family financial distress because she had to pay for private tutoring because the Council failed to provide education.

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(i), as amended)
5. 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)
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
7. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaints that the Council failed to consult with a school she requested and failed to arrange alternative education for Y. This is because Mrs X had a right of appeal to the SEND tribunal if she disagreed with the provision the Council named in Y’s EHC plan and it would have been reasonable for her to have used this appeal right. The law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, an appeal to the tribunal.
9. I have investigated the remainder of Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mrs 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

Legislation and guidance

EHC Plan 

12. 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. 

Reviewing EHC plans

13. 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 take place. The process is only complete when the council issues a decision about the review.
14. Within four weeks of a review meeting, the council must notify the child’s parent of its decision to maintain, amend or discontinue the EHC Plan. Once the decision is issued, the review is complete. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176)
15. 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.

Appeal rights

16. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s:

• decision not to carry out an EHC needs assessment or reassessment;
• decision that it is not necessary to issue a EHC Plan following an assessment;
• description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified in their EHC Plan;
• amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan;
• decision not to amend an EHC Plan following a review or reassessment; and
• decision to cease to maintain an EHC Plan.

Council complaint process

17. The Council has a two-stage complaint process.
18. It says it will respond to stage one complaints within a maximum of 20 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.

Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman Principles of Good Administrative Practice

19. In 2018 the Ombudsman published a guidance document setting out the standards we expect from bodies in jurisdiction ‘Principles of Good Administrative Practice’. This includes “dealing with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively, taking account of their individual circumstances” and “taking responsibility for actions”.

What happened?

20. Y is a child of secondary school age. He has an EHC plan due to additional needs.
21. The Council issued Y’s final EHC plan on 15 August 2023.
22. It then held an annual review in July 2024. At this review, Mrs X said she wanted Y to attend a different school.
23. Mrs X contacted the Council in November, asking for an update of the outcome of Y’s annual review.
24. The Council did not respond, and so Mrs X made a complaint to the Council in early December about the delayed outcome of Y’s annual review, its failure to provide alternative provision and poor communication.
25. Mrs X contacted the Council again several times from January 2025 asking for updates.
26. The Council wrote to Y’s father on 22 April with its decision to maintain Y’s EHC plan. It noted that it still considered Y’s named school to be appropriate for him.
27. Later on in April, Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two because it had not responded to stage one.
28. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in February 2026. It noted:

• It apologised for the time it took to respond to her complaint. It explained the delay was because it had been experiencing an increased demand for services, which resulted in delays.
• It upheld Mrs X’s complaint that it delayed in issuing Y’s EHC plan. It apologised for this and noted this was because it had introduced new systems to improve its services which caused delays.
• It did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint that it had failed to provide alternative provision. It noted that it had named a suitable school in Y’s EHC plan. It explained the school had offered Y several interventions which had led to an increase in his attendance.

29. Y started to attend the school named in Y’s EHC plan, part time, from September 2025.

Findings

Y’s EHC plan following annual review

30. The Council held Y’s annual review meeting in July 2024. It then issued the final EHC plan in April 2025.
31. The Council should have issued the final plan eight weeks after the annual review took place in July 2024. However, it took the Council nine months to send the final EHC maintained plan to Mrs X. This significant delay of seven months was not in line with the statutory timeframes and is fault.
32. This has caused frustration and distress to Mrs X and Y. This also delayed Mrs X’s right of appeal to the SEND tribunal, but, this injustice is limited because Mrs X did not appeal the Council’s decision to maintain Y’s EHC plan.
33. The Council said it is aware of the delays related to its EHC plan processes and it is taking steps to reduce delays. I will therefore not recommend any further service improvements here, but I will recommend remedies for the personal injustice caused to Mrs X and Y.

Complaint handling and communication

34. There is evidence that Mrs X contacted the Council several times and that the Council either failed to respond, or its responses were significantly delayed.
35. This is not in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance document which sets out the standards we expect called ‘Principles of Good Administrative Practice’. This includes “dealing with people helpfully, promptly and sensitively, taking account of their individual circumstances” and “taking responsibility for actions”.
36. I find fault in the failure of the Council to respond to Mrs X’s communications in a timely manner and on some occasions, not responding at all. This caused Mrs X further frustration.
37. I also note Mrs X made a stage one complaint to the Council in December 2024 which it did not respond to. She made a stage two complaint about the same matters in April 2025. The Council did not respond to this until February 2026. The Council’s policy says it will respond to stage one and two complaints within 20 working days, despite this, it took the Council fourteen months to respond to her complaint.
38. This significant delay was fault, which caused Mrs X further avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
39. The Council has already accepted fault and apologised to Mrs X for poor communication throughout the EHC process and a delayed response to her complaint. It explained the delays were due to a significant increase in demand within the SEN service.
40. I will recommend the Council make service improvements and a personal remedy to Mrs X.

Back to top

Action

41. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will:

• apologise to Mrs X for the frustration and uncertainty caused to her by its faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology;
• make a payment of £700 to Mrs X, on behalf of Y, to recognise the distress and frustration caused by the delay in issuing the final EHC plan. This equates to approximately £100 per month from the date the EHC plan should have been issued until April 2025, when the Council issued the final EHC plan; and
• make a payment of £100 to Mrs X to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused to her by the Council’s poor communication and delayed complaint response.
• We publish the Complaint Handling Code which sets out best practice in how councils should deal with complaints. In this case, we found the Council at fault because it delayed in responding to complaints. In order to prevent similar faults from happening in future, the Council should consider our guidance and tell us what action(s) it will take to improve the way it deals with complaints.

42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman