Summary: Mrs X complained about delays following the Annual Reviews of her son’s (Y) Education Health and Care Plan. We found fault with the Council’s failure to comply with the statutory review timescales. This fault caused injustice to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic distress payment and carry out some service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s failure to comply with the statutory timescales to complete Annual Reviews of Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, for which the meetings were held in June 2024 and May 2025.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s failings meant Section E of Y’s EHC Plan was not updated when he moved from key stage one of education to key stage two. The Council’s failings caused Mrs X distress and she was deprived of her appeal rights.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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)
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 have and have not investigated

8. Besides the complaint raised in March 2025 I have also decided to investigate Mrs X’s complaint raised with the Council in early July 2025. Although the second complaint was raised after Mrs X came to us, the Council has had an opportunity to respond to it. The complaints from March and July 2025 are about the same issue of the Council’s failure to adhere to the statutory review timescales and both were upheld. It would be disproportionate to ask Mrs X to bring a new complaint to us about the failings within an Annual Review of Y’s EHC Plan held in 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative framework

11. 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 discontinue 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, 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

13. The Council issued Y’s post-Tribunal EHC Plan at the beginning of August 2023. The Council named an independent special school (the School) in Section I of Y’s EHC Plan.
14. At the beginning of June 2024 the School arranged a meeting to review Y’s EHC Plan. Y’s transfer from the key stage one to key stage two education was discussed and the School proposed new outcomes.
15. Between September 2024 and March 2025 the School contacted the Council several times asking for update on the amendments to Y’s EHC Plan.
16. At the beginning of March 2025 Mrs X complained to the Council. In its response a few weeks later the Council upheld Mrs X’s complaint and accepted it had breached the statutory review timescales. The Council explained the Annual Review documents were sent to a caseworker who no longer worked for the Council hence they were not actioned. The Council apologised and said a Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) caseworker would review Y’s paperwork and issue the outcome of the review process within ten working days.
17. The Council sent Mrs X its proposed amendments. The only change it suggested was replacing “key stage one” with “key stage two”.
18. Mrs X was not happy with these amendments as they did not take account the change in Y’s outcomes, proposed by the School, which resulted from Y moving to the next stage of his education. In mid-April 2025 Mrs X pointed this out to the Council.
19. Further correspondence took place between the Council and Mrs X. The Council did not complete the Annual Review process before the next review meeting took place at the end of May 2025.
20. At the beginning of May 2025 the Council refused to take Mrs X’s complaint to stage two of the complaint process. It said investigating it at stage two would not change the outcome. Mrs X brought her complaint to us.
21. At the beginning of June 2025 the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan, which did not include any amendments proposed at the meeting in May 2025.
22. At the beginning of July 2025 Mrs X again complained to the Council about its delays following the Annual Review meeting in May 2025. The Council upheld Mrs X’s complaint explaining it had not received the review paperwork from the School. Mrs X did not accept this explanation as, she said, the School had sent the review documents to the Council at the beginning of June 2025.
23. The Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan with the amendments proposed at the review meetings in 2024 and 2025 at the beginning of September 2025.

Analysis

24. As explained in paragraphs 11 and 12 after Annual Review meetings Councils have four weeks to decide on whether they will continue to maintain, amend or cease to maintain child’s EHC Plan. If the decision is to amend, the Council should sent its proposed amendments with a decision letter and issue a final amended EHC Plan within 12 weeks of the Annual Review meeting date. This did not happen after the Annual Review meetings for Y’s EHC Plan in June 2024 and in May 2025.
25. After both Annual Review meetings the Council decided to amend Y’s EHC Plan. After the review in 2024 Y’s final amended EHC Plan should have been issued by the end of August 2024 and after the review in 2025 it should have happened by mid-August 2025. For the Annual Review of 2024 the Council delayed issuing Y’s final amended EHC Plan by over nine months and for the Annual Review of 2025 the delay amounted to a few weeks.
26. The Council’s failure to comply with the statutory timescales when reviewing Y’s EHC Plan is fault. It caused injustice to Mrs X as she was frustrated by the Council’s failure to update Y’s EHC Plan. She spent time complaining and asking the Council to amend Y’s EHC Plan.
27. The Council’s failings did not cause injustice to Y, as he remained well supported by the School. In June 2024 the School proposed amendments to Y’s outcomes as he was moving to the next key stage of his education. The School could have measured Y’s progress towards these outcomes even without a final amended EHC Plan. In view of the lack of concerns about the quality of Y’s education, it is likely to have taken place.
28. The impact of the Council’s fault on Mrs X was limited due to the quality of support Y received at the School. The School would have been delivering what Y needed even before the Council issued his final amended EHC Plan. I have seen no evidence of any dispute about the content of Y’s post-review EHC Plan between Mrs X and the Council, therefore not having appeal rights due to the lack of a final amended EHC Plan did not cause injustice to Mrs X.
29. The Council’s delay in issuing Y’s final EHC Plan after the Annual Review meeting in May 2025 was not significant enough to cause injustice to Mrs X in separation to the previous failings. I do recognise, however, that this delay increased Mrs X’s distress as, after apologising and upholding her complaint from March 2025, the Council was failing again to fulfil its review duties.

Back to top

Action

30. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council complete within four weeks of the final decision the following:
• apologise to Mrs X for the injustice caused to her by the repeated failure to adhere to the statutory timescales for the review of Y’s EHC Plan. 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 the apology I have recommended;
• pay Mrs X £150 to recognise her distress.

The Council will provide the evidence that this has happened.

31. We also recommend the Council within three months of the final decision:
• review its Annual Review process to ensure there are no unnecessary delays in dealing with the review documents sent by the schools;
• ensure there is a system in place to prevent parents of the children with EHC Plans being negatively affected by the changes in the SEND staff.

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

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations, so this investigation is at an end.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman