Summary: Miss Y complains the Council delayed in reviewing and amending C’s Education Health and Care Plan which meant that C did not receive the education they needed after they stopped attending school. The Council has accepted that it delayed reviewing the plan and has refunded some of the tuition costs which Miss Y incurred during the period of delay. Following our recommendations, the Council has now agreed to make a further payment to fully remedy the injustice caused to C.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council’s failure to finalise and issue C’s final Education Health and Care (EHC) plan following the annual review held in June 2024. She says the significant delay meant that C did not receive the specialist provision they needed. During the period of delay, C remained out of school without any provision arranged or funded by the Council.
2. In the meantime, Miss Y says she experienced significant financial loss as she privately funded C’s education. She wants the Council to reimburse her quantifiable losses and recognise the significant distress she and C experienced.

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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by the Council and Miss Y as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
7. 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 found

Reviewing EHC plans

8. Councils must arrange for EHC plans to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure they are 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) 
9. 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.
10. Parents or schools may request an early review of a plan if they consider:
• the child’s education, health or social care needs have changed and are no longer accurately described in their plan; or
• that the education, health or social care provision in the EHC plan is no longer meeting their needs.

Section 19 duties

11. Under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 councils have a duty to arrange the provision of suitable education, at school or otherwise, for children who, because of illness or other reasons, may not receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.
12. Councils must “make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.” (Education Act 1996, section 19(1))
13. Statutory guidance says the duty to provide a suitable education applies “to all children of compulsory school age resident in the council area, whether or not they are on the roll of a school, and whatever type of school they attend”.

Elective Home Education

14. Parents have a right to educate their children at home (Section 7, Education Act 1996). This can include the use of tutors or parental support groups. In choosing to educate a child at home, the parents take on financial responsibility for any costs involved, including examination costs.
15. Councils have a duty to identify children in their area of compulsory school age who are not registered at a school (including academies and free schools) and are not receiving suitable education ‘otherwise’ (Section 436A, Education Act 1996).
16. Councils do not regulate home education. However, the law requires councils to enquire about what education is being provided when a child is not attending school full-time. The primary responsibility remains with the parent, but councils have a social and moral duty to ensure that a child is safe and being suitably educated. Where there is clear evidence the child is receiving suitable education, the need for contact should be minimal.
17. If a child with an EHC plan is home educated by their parents under Elective Home Education (EHE), the Council no longer has a legal duty to deliver the “special educational provision” in the plan. This is because parents are assumed to be providing suitable alternative arrangements.
18. The Council’s “Elective Home Education Policy (September 2024) says:

“If the home education being provided for a child who has an EHCP is suitable, Wokingham Borough Council has no duty to arrange any special educational provision for that child. Where this is the case, the EHCP will simply set out the type of provision that the Council determines the child requires and state that parents have made their own arrangements under Section 7 of the Education Act 1996”

What happened

19. This section provides an overview of the key events relevant to this complaint and is not a full record of everything that happened.
20. In June 2023 the Council issued a final EHC plan for C. It did not name a specific school but instead named the type of school: mainstream. C remained on the roll of a mainstream school.
21. Soon after, Miss Y emailed the school to say that it was unsuitable and C would not return. Miss Y said that she would educate C at home. On 29 September 2023 the school emailed Miss Y to arrange a meeting to “establish if there are any other options at this stage”. The school also said it would invite an officer from the Council’s SEND team. Miss Y responded to decline the invite.
22. On 4 October 2023 the school emailed the Council with paperwork relating to Miss Y’s request to electively home educate (EHE). At the same time, the school also emailed Miss Y to provide the contact details of the relevant team at the Council for further information about EHE.
23. The paperwork sent by the school to the Council said that C’s last day of attendance was 20 June 2023 and that their attendance from September 2023 was 0%.
24. The Council emailed Miss Y on 5 October 2023 with a “home education pack” and suggested a meeting to discuss Miss Y’s plans to educate C. Miss Y declined the meeting and explained the stress she was experiencing from trying to get the right support in place for C. Miss Y asked the Council to arrange an early review of C’s EHC plan. Miss Y also mentioned the possibility of C attending an online school.
25. The Council completed an EHE visit on 20 December 2023 and noted that Miss Y expressed an inability to continue funding C’s home education after January.
26. On 4 January 2024 the Council recorded the end of C’s EHE following Miss Y’s confirmation that she no longer wished to home educate. The Council noted that C’s case needed to be investigated as a matter of urgency.
27. The Council says it completed an annual review of C’s EHC plan on 27 March 2024. The Council has no evidence the review was properly concluded because the caseworker left their role shortly after. However, the records show that Miss Y made a request for Education Other than at School (EOTAS).
28. The Council says it further reviewed C’s EHC plan on 26 June 2024. It says there is no record of the review notes because it was completed by an interim member of staff who failed to upload their notes to the Council’s document management system before they left the service.
29. However, there is evidence to show the SEND panel considered and approved Miss Y’s request for EOTAS. The panel also agreed and paid £5022 for the tutoring costs which Miss Y incurred between June 2023 and 26 June 2024, minus any time C received EHE. The Council said the relevant period for reimbursement was 31 weeks. The Council also agreed to pay £400 towards the cost of a laptop for C and offered a further payment of £150 in recognition of the distress caused by the delay in addressing C’s educational needs. The Council later increased this payment to £300.
30. On 2 August 2024 the Council made a referral for C to receive additional support to leave the house and take part in activities. The Council has since acknowledged the referral was not properly made.
31. In addition to the agreed EOTAS, on 27 August 2024 the Council agreed to fund some online schooling for C from June 2024. It also agreed to a request for a further three hours of tutoring from 11 September.
32. Miss Y complained to the Council about the delays in arranging C’s provision and finalising their EHC plan. The Council responded to say it would issue the proposed amended EHC plan on 25 October 2024. The Council also agreed to put C’s case before its ‘Decision Making Forum’ to confirm the provision. The Council contacted Miss Y on 6 November 2024 to discuss her panel submission.
33. The panel went ahead on 13 November 2024 and a further panel on 20 November. The panel decision was not properly uploaded to the Council’s records.
34. The final EHC plan, issued on 28 July 2025, included details of the agreed personal budget for the EOTAS element of C’s education. This confirmed the annual personal budget of £6402 for “resources and equipment”. This is in addition to a placement at a college named in Section I.

Was there fault causing injustice by the Council?

Injustice to Miss Y

35. When a child with an EHC plan moves from attending school to being home educated, this represents a significant change in the provision and placement. Miss Y asked the Council to bring forward C’s annual review and to complete this early. The purpose of any such review would be to consider the new arrangements and formally record the change in provision and placement. This is important to ensure the plan accurately reflects the child’s education and that statutory responsibilities are met. An early review also provides an opportunity to confirm that the home education meets the child’s special educational needs.
36. When the Council did review C’s plan, it did not keep a record of the review, nor did it provide Miss Y with a written decision on whether to amend, maintain, or cease the plan. This is further fault, as it frustrated Miss Y’s right to appeal.
37. I have considered the injustice caused by the Council’s fault and whether the remedial actions it has already offered fully address that injustice. In my view, the Council was not responsible for meeting C’s educational needs during the period of home education between September 2023 and January 2024. Miss Y stated that she felt pressured to home educate and was not aware of the financial implications. However, records show that both the school and the Council offered to meet with her to discuss her proposal and other options. Had Miss Y attended those meetings, she may have been able to make a fully informed decision. I am therefore satisfied that the Council had no duty during the period of elective home education.
38. It is my view that it was fault for the Council not to complete a documented review of C’s plan when there was a significant change to their placement and after Miss Y made her request. On the balance of probabilities, it is my view the Council would have amended C’s plan had it reviewed the plan sooner. As such, it is likely that the provision eventually agreed in June 2024 would have been put in place earlier. The Council has already acknowledged the quantifiable loss Miss Y experienced with the £5022 payment it made.
39. The Council has now proposed a further payment of £900 to cover C’s gym membership and mentoring/therapy for the 2024/25 academic year. I consider this to be in line with the provision currently outlined in C’s EHC plan, and there are no further quantifiable losses that the Council should reimburse.
40. The Council has also proposed an additional £100 for Miss Y’s time and trouble. This brings the total symbolic remedy to £400. I consider this an appropriate remedy for the distress caused and for the frustration of Miss Y’s appeal rights.

Injustice to C

41. In addition to the provision privately arranged and funded by Miss Y, and later reimbursed by the Council, C also received a place at an online school funded by the Council from June 2024. In my view, this placement would likely have been made available sooner had the Council carried out a prompt review of C’s plan or considered its duties under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 when it became aware that C was receiving only some provision. Had the Council done so, it is more likely than not that it would have supplemented the existing home tuition with the online school placement before June 2024.
42. Furthermore, the Council has also acknowledged that a referral it made in August 2024 for C to receive additional support was not properly completed. This caused further injustice to C.
43. The fault meant C experienced injustice because they missed educational provision. The Council has agreed to remedy this with a further symbolic payment of £500.

Back to top

Action

44. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Pay the additional £900 to Miss Y for the gym and tutoring costs incurred in the 2024/25 academic year.
• Pay the additional £100 to Miss Y in recognition of their distress (this is in addition to the £300 already paid, making the total remedy payment £400).
• Pay £500 to Miss Y in recognition of the injustice caused to C when they received only partial educational provision between January and June 2024.
45. Within eight weeks of our final decision, the Council will also:
• In light of the loss of records from departing staff, and the failure to record key decisions, the Council should develop a handover process. This is to ensure that temporary staff, or those who give notice to leave, hand over their records onto the main record management system. The Council should provide evidence to the LGSCO of this process which could be in the form of a staff briefing, internal policy update or minutes of a meeting in which this is discussed.
• Remind relevant staff of the statutory requirement to issue written decisions following reviews of EHC plan. The Council should provide evidence to the LGSCO of this reminder which could be in the form of a staff briefing or minutes of a meeting in which this reminder is discussed.
46. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will implement the actions listed in the section above to remedy injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman