Summary: Ms X complained about the way the Council carried out an annual review of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council was at fault for failing to complete the annual review as it should have done. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to reflect the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains about the way the Council carried out an annual review of her son, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Specifically, Ms X says the Council:
• Failed to get a report from Y’s literacy and numeracy tutor;
• Informed her the speech and language therapist (SALT) could not attend the meeting too late to rearrange it;
• Arranged for someone who was not Y’s current caseworker to conduct the review, but it became clear quickly that they were not prepared for it;
• Failed to circulate reports prior to the meeting, preventing meaningful discussions about the content of Y’s EHC Plan; and
• Failed to finalise Y’s EHC Plan despite agreeing to re-do the annual review in response to her complaint.
2. Ms X says this has caused real distress for her and Y and has created uncertainty as to whether Y is missing out on provision he would otherwise be entitled to.

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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have considered Ms X’s complaint as set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 from the point Y’s EHC Plan annual review meeting took place in January 2025 up until the Y moved out of the Council’s area in September 2025.
7. From September 2025 the new council took over responsibility for maintaining Y’s EHC Plan. If Ms X wants to complain about any delays that have occurred since September 2025, she will need to raise a complaint with the new council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant law and policy

10. A young person with special educational needs (SEN) may have an EHC Plan. This sets out the young person’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
11. The process for reviewing and amending EHC Plans is set out in legislation and government guidance. Councils must review EHC Plans once a year, and the annual review must take place within 12 months of the date of the previous EHC Plan.
12. Annual reviews are made up of two parts. The first stage is the review meeting. The second stage is the Council’s decision notice. Within four weeks of the meeting, the Council must tell the child or young person’s parent (or the young person themselves) whether it has decided to maintain, amend or discontinue the EHC Plan. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 20154 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176)
13. Where a 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 (an amendment notice, also known as a draft plan) 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). It must do so ‘without delay’.
14. Following comments from the child’s parent, or the young person, if the Council decides to continue to make amendments, it must issue the amended EHC Plan as soon as practicable and within eight weeks of the date it sent the existing EHC Plan and amendment notice to the parents. (Section 22(3) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.196)
15. Caselaw has established that when a Council is amending an EHC Plan, it should take no longer than 12 weeks from the date of the annual review meeting to the date it issues the final amended plan.
16. Where a child or young person moves to another council, the ‘old’ council must transfer the EHC Plan to the ‘new’ council. Once transferred, the new council becomes responsible for maintaining the EHC Plan and takes over review responsibilities as though it had issued the original plan.

What happened

17. I have summarised below some key events leading to Ms X’s complaint. While I have considered everything submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
18. Y has SEN and his education is supported by an EHC Plan.
19. Y’s keyworker arranged an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan to take place on 30 January 2025.
20. However, on 15 January Y’s SALT explained they would not be able to attend the annual review on that date.
21. On 24 January Y’s keyworker emailed Ms X to explain the SALT could not attend the annual review meeting, but they could rearrange for 6 February. Ms X responded to explain she could not do 6 February and said she was unhappy with the short notice change of plans.
22. Y’s annual review meeting took place as planned on 30 January.
23. Ms X complained to the Council to explain she was not happy with how the annual review meeting had gone. Ms X said the Council had:
• failed to circulate reports and paperwork more than 14 days before the meeting, which affected the quality of discussion and decision-making;
• sent incorrect paperwork to professionals to complete, causing misunderstanding and incomplete reporting;
• not arranged for the SALT to be in attendance;
• arranged for the meeting to be chaired by someone who was not Y’s key worker and who was unprepared and made inappropriate comments around the conduct of other members of staff; and
• not discussed the personal budget.
24. The Council agreed the annual review was not to the standard it should have been. The Council agreed to assign Y a new key worker and arrange to redo the annual review meeting.
25. Y’s annual review meeting was redone on 10 April.
26. The Council sent a proposed amended EHC Plan to Ms X in May 2025, and Ms X provided her comments on this.
27. On 3 July the Council missed the 12-week deadline to complete the annual review of Y’s EHC Plan.
28. In September 2025, before the Council completed Y’s annual review, he and Ms X moved to a new council’s area. The Council provided the new council with a copy of the proposed amended plan.
29. Since Ms X raised her complaint the Council has explained it has delivered comprehensive training to all key workers focussing on the SEND Code of Practice and put new quality assurance processes in place to improve the quality of annual reviews.

Analysis

30. Y’s EHC Plan annual review meeting took place on 30 January 2025. Had the Council completed this process in line with the statutory standards and time limits, the final amended EHC Plan would have been issued by 24 April 2025. However, this review did not meet the standards set out in the SEND regulations and had to be redone. This is fault and caused considerable frustration and uncertainty for Ms X and Y which is injustice.
31. Y’s EHC Plan annual review meeting was redone on 10 April 2025. Had the Council completed this process in line with the statutory time limits, Y’s final amended EHC Plan would have been issued by 3 July 2025. However, the Council failed to issue a final amended EHC Plan for Y before he moved out of its area in September 2025. This is fault. This would have further added to the uncertainty and distress for Y and Ms X and frustrated Ms X’s right to appeal to the tribunal, which is injustice.
32. The Council has explained it has delivered training to the relevant staff and put processes in place to improve the quality of EHC Plan annual reviews going forward and I find this to be suitable action to prevent a recurrence. However, I find the Council ought to take action to remedy the personal injustice to Y and Ms X.

Back to top

Action

33. To remedy the injustice identified above, the Council should complete the following actions within one month:
• Apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by failing to complete the annual review of Y’s EHC Plan within standards and time limits set out in the SEND Regulations. 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.
• Pay Ms X £500 to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to her and Y by the delay of around five months that the Council was responsible for when it came to issuing a final amended EHC Plan for Y.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman