Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son with sufficient education or the provision in his education, health and care plan, delayed carrying out an annual review and ignored her emails. The Council delayed completing an annual review but there is no fault in the remainder of the complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Ms X and put in place a process to manage annual reviews.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complained the Council:
• failed to provide her son with sufficient education or the provision in his education, health and care plan (EHC Plan) from October 2024 until he started at a new school in 2025;
• delayed carrying out an annual review; and
• allowed one of its officers to ignore her emails.
2. Ms X says the Council’s actions has had an impact on her son’s mental health and has caused her distress.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
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. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Ms X's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
8. Ms X and the organisation 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

Education

9. The Education Act 1996 (Section 19) says education authorities must make suitable educational provision for children of compulsory school age who are absent from school because of illness, exclusion or otherwise. The provision can be at a school or otherwise, but must be suitable for the child's age, ability and aptitude, including any special needs.

Special educational needs

10. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an EHC Plan. This sets out the child's needs and arrangements for meeting them.
11. Local authorities (councils) have a duty to arrange the special educational provision set out in an EHC Plan. (Children and Families Act 2014 section 42)
12. EHC Plans must be reviewed by the local authority as a minimum every 12 months.
13. The first review must be held within 12 months of the date when the EHC Plan was issued, and then within 12 months of any previous review, and the local authority’s decision following the review meeting must be notified to the child’s parent or the young person within four weeks of the review meeting (and within 12 months of the date of issue of the EHC Plan or previous review).

What happened

14. Ms X’s son has special educational needs and was attending an independent school until Ms X removed him from that school on 26 October 2024 after an incident. The school told the Council about that on 14 November. The Council gave the school six weeks notice on the placement and asked it to put in place alternative provision until then (31 December).
15. Ms X’s son began receiving five hours education from a tutor from provider A and 10 hours mentoring from provider B. That is the provision Ms X had asked for. The Council took over funding that provision in January 2025.
16. In January 2025 Ms X asked the Council for an extra five hours from provider B. Ms X explained her son was struggling at home, particularly around social interaction. The Council suggested Ms X discuss that with social care.
17. Later in January the Council’s placement panel considered the request for increased hours. The panel did not agree an extra five hours with provider B but agreed an extra five hours with provider A.
18. Ms X raised concerns about the panel’s decision. Ms X told the Council her son struggled to access the five hours allocated to provider A. Ms X said she did not believe her son would cope with 10 hours from provider A. The Council explained its responsibility was to provide Ms X’s son with an education rather than to arrange social opportunities. The Council again directed Ms X to social care. The Council also explained the extra hours could be delivered gradually at her son’s pace.
19. In February the Council’s specialist placement panel met. The Council arranged for another school, school C, to visit to decide whether it could offer Ms X’s son a place.
20. Ms X raised concerns about the failure to complete an annual review in 2024. The Council said it would contact the relevant professionals to arrange the review.
21. Ms X raised concerns about the case officer allocated to her. In response the Council agreed for the case officer’s line manager to co-work the case with her.
22. School C visited Ms X’s son in May 2025. Following that visit the Council’s placement panel agreed funding for school C.
23. The Council held an annual review for the EHC Plan on 21 May.
24. The Council arranged for Ms X son to start at school C in June 2025. The Council met with Ms X and agreed to stop the tutor from provider A immediately. The Council said the sessions with provider B would continue on a reduced basis leading up to Ms X’s son beginning at school C. As part of that transition the Council agreed the mentor from provider B would take Ms X’s son to school C on the days of his sessions.
25. Ms X asked the Council to continue the hours with provider B. The Council’s placement panel considered that request in August. The panel declined as it was satisfied school C had transition arrangements in place.
26. On 16 October the Council issued a final EHC Plan naming school C.

Analysis

27. Ms X says the Council failed to put in place sufficient education or provision in her son’s EHC Plan since October 2024. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Ms X’s son stopped attending his allocated school on 26 October 2024 after incidents had taken place and Ms X removed him. I am satisfied the Council arranged for the school to put in place alternative provision until the six week notice period had expired. The Council then took over funding the alternative provision after that. The provision in place was five hours education with provider A and 10 hours mentoring and provision with provider B.
28. In terms of education, I am satisfied provider A was responsible for delivering an academic education to Ms X’s son. That education took place in Ms X’s home. Provider B arranged for a mentor to work with Ms X’s son and take him out into the community for the remaining 10 hours. 15 hours is a significant alternative provision package given it is one-to-one provision and therefore more intensive than a school environment. However, I understand Ms X’s concern given only five hours of that provision related to academic education.
29. However, the evidence I have seen satisfies me Ms X made clear to the Council her son was struggling to access the education in place from provider A. In particular, Ms X referred to her son struggling to learn in the home. Ms X made clear to the Council her son was only accessing three of his five hours from provider A as a result. In those circumstances I am satisfied the provision in place for Ms X’s son was more than he was able to access in terms of his academic education. I therefore have no grounds on which to criticise the Council.
30. I also note when Ms X asked for more hours the Council arranged for an extra five hours per week with provider A. I understand Ms X’s concern because she had asked for more hours with provider B. I am satisfied the Council considered Ms X’s request properly because it went to its panel. The panel decided five hours extra provision with a mentoring service was inappropriate and instead those five hours should be allocated to academic education. I cannot criticise the Council for reaching that decision given Ms X’s son was already receiving 10 hours from provider B. I am satisfied though the Council made clear provider A could increase the hours available to Ms X’s son incrementally to reflect the hours he was able to access. I welcome that.
31. Having considered the EHC Plan in place in 2024 I am satisfied most of the provision in that EHC Plan relates to how staff interact with Ms X son and encourage him to learn. The documentary evidence shows both provider A and provider B had a copy of Ms X’s son’s EHC Plan and were working to it.
32. I appreciate because Ms X’s son was not learning in an education environment he did not receive all of the provision in his EHC Plan. However, I am satisfied that is partly because he was being educated out of school and partly because he could not access all his hours. I have therefore found no evidence to suggest Ms X’s son missed out on special educational needs provision because of fault by the Council.
33. Ms X says the Council cancelled provider B with insufficient notice which affected her son’s behaviour. The evidence I have seen satisfies me the Council cancelled provider B after Ms X’s son had begun attending school C. I am also satisfied the school had in place a transition plan and the Council kept provider B in place initially to allow that transition to happen smoothly. As the Council did not cancel provider B until after Ms X’s son had started at his new school I have no grounds to criticise it.
34. Ms X says the Council delayed carrying out the annual review for her son’s EHC Plan. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Ms X’s son had an annual review on 11 September 2023. So, Ms X’s son should have had another annual review in September 2024. The Council accepts that did not happen. The Council says that was because Ms X’s son left his allocated school and began attending a new school at around the same time. The Council also says as a new independent school it did not have the necessary arrangements in place to arrange the annual review. The Council says as that placement broke down quickly and it had to sort out alternative provision and look for a new school for Ms X’s son the annual review was further delayed until May 2025.
35. I understand the difficulties in this case. However, the code of practice is clear annual reviews must take place within 12 months of the previous annual review. The fact there were specific difficulties in this case does not remove the Council’s responsibility for arranging an annual review within 12 months. Failure to carry out the annual review within 12 months is therefore fault.
36. Having considered the 2024 EHC Plan and the one issued in 2025 though I do not consider there is any significant difference in provision between the two. I therefore do not consider Ms X’s son missed out on special educational needs provision due to the delay holding the annual review. However, delay holding the annual review delayed Ms X’s appeal right. That is a serious injustice. The Council was also consulting schools for a new placement for Ms X’s son at the time and Ms X was concerned that would impact on her son being able to secure a place as his EHC Plan was out of date. I therefore consider Ms X experienced some frustration because of the delay.
37. To remedy Ms X’s injustice I recommended the Council apologise to her and pay her £250. I further recommended the Council introduce a process for managing reviews of EHC Plans so the Council is not reliant on schools identifying when an annual review is due. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
38. Ms X says the case officer allocated to her repeatedly ignored her emails. Having considered the documentary evidence I have not found any evidence to support that allegation. The evidence shows although Ms X did not always agree with the approach the case officer was taking, the case officer nevertheless responded to Ms X’s contacts. I therefore have no grounds to criticise the Council.

Back to top

Action

39. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Ms X for the frustration and delayed appeal rights she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Ms X £250.
40. Within three months of my decision the Council should introduce a process to manage annual reviews of EHC Plans.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

42. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will take action to address the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman