Summary: We found fault with the Council in delaying Y’s annual review, in its handling of EOTAS funding and transport funding, in its communication and case management, and in the way it secured the laptop / ICT provision in Section F of Y’s EHC Plan. This caused Mrs X injustice in the form of avoidable frustration, uncertainty, distress, and time and trouble. The delayed annual review also caused Y injustice through delayed access to additional provision later agreed following mediation. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to meet its responsibilities in relation to her daughter Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. In particular, she says the Council:

1. did not complete the annual review of the Plan within the required timescales, delaying her right of appeal and access to updated support;
2. failed to ensure timely payment of EOTAS funding, resulting in a disruption to Y’s educational provision;
3. withdrew her personal transport budget without notice or explanation, leaving her unable to access education;
4. failed to provide the laptop specified in Section F of the EHC Plan; and
5. communicated poorly and inconsistently with the family, causing confusion about who was managing the case.

2. Mrs X considers the Council’s offer of a £500 remedy does not reflect the impact of these issues on Y’s education and wellbeing, or on the family.

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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y, Mrs X’s representative and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs Y and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

EHC Plan

8. 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.
9. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 
• Section B: Special educational needs.  
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
• Section I: The name and/or type of educational placement.

Councils’ duty to secure special educational provision

10. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
11. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 
• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

Education Other Than at School (EOTAS)

12. For some children and young people, education in any setting would be inappropriate due to their special educational needs. This is referred to as EOTAS.
13. If the Council agrees it would be inappropriate for any required special educational provision to be delivered in a school, it can agree to arrange for it to be delivered somewhere else, for example at home. The Council must arrange and pay for that provision.

Transport

14. A child or young person with special educational needs (SEN) 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. 
15. Local authorities must make suitable home to school travel arrangements as they consider necessary for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age to attend their ‘qualifying school’. The travel arrangements must be made and provided free of charge. The relevant qualifying school is the nearest school with places available that provides education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child, and any special educational needs the child may have. ‘Eligible children’ include:
• children living outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from the school (two miles for children under eight, three miles for children aged eight and above);
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot reasonably be expected to walk to school because of their special educational needs, disability or mobility problem;
• children living within walking distance of the school but who cannot walk to school because the route is unsafe; and
• children entitled on low-income grounds. (Education Act 1996, 508B(1) and Schedule 35B)

Back to top

What happened

16. Y is a child with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council carried out an annual review of the Plan in July 2023 and later issued an amended final Plan in September 2023. The Council has also said a further amended Plan was issued in mid-March 2024.
17. Mrs X says the next annual review was due in July 2024 but did not take place within the required timescale. In her Stage 1 complaint, made in October 2024, she said attempts had been made in September 2024 to organise the review, but it had still not been agreed. She said this delayed her right of appeal and meant support had not been updated.
18. The Council says it received correspondence from the family’s advocate on 25 September 2024 raising concerns, including that the annual review was overdue. The Council says the annual review meeting later took place on 14 November 2024. It then issued a Notice of Amendment in mid-December 2024 and an amended final EHC Plan in early February 2025.
19. Mrs X also complained about transport funding. In her Stage 1 complaint, she said Y had received a transport budget as part of a personal budget until June 2024, and that there had been no communication explaining why this had been cancelled. She said there had also been ongoing discussions between SENAR and the Transport team about funding transport to and from Y’s tutor.
20. Mrs X also raised concerns about the funding and delivery of Y’s EOTAS provision. In her Stage 1 complaint, she referred to a request made by a provider in May 2024 for a decision on additional resources said to be needed to deliver provision under Section F of the EHC Plan. She said further enquiries were made in June 2024, but no decision had been provided. She said some Section F provision remained undelivered because of the delay.
21. In her Stage 2 complaint, Mrs X said the EOTAS budget allocated did not cover Y’s provision adequately and that continued issues with the allocation of funds through People Plus meant provision had ceased due to lack of payments.
22. Mrs X also said the Council failed to provide a laptop specified in Section F of the EHC Plan.
23. Mrs X also complained about communication. In her Stage 1 complaint, she said communication between the family, professionals and the local authority had not been of an acceptable standard, that many emails were not replied to or were replied to late, and that there had been confusion about who was leading Y’s case.
24. Mrs X complained to the Council through its complaints procedure. In its Stage 2 complaint response, sent on 13 March 2025, the Council said it had not arranged the annual review within the statutory timeline and acknowledged periods of delay in correspondence. It offered Mrs X a symbolic payment of £500. Mrs X then brought the complaint to the Ombudsman.

Enquiries

25. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to the Council. Of note, the Council said:
• the previous annual review took place on 3 July 2023, and the 2024 annual review meeting took place on 14 November 2024;
• it accepted there was delay in progressing the annual review and that this delayed the point at which appeal rights arose;
• the provision in Section F remained substantively unchanged during the relevant period
• it did not consider the delay resulted in loss of educational provision;
• the EOTAS package agreed following the annual review totalled £36,475;
• The Council says Mrs X’s advocate confirmed on 10 March 2025 that Y had not missed any sessions;
• a transport application had originally been made in December 2023 but was withdrawn because Y did not have a fixed school placement;
• transport funding was later agreed following an application in January 2025 and backdated to 2 October 2023;
• ICT equipment, including a laptop, was to be funded through the personal budget; and
• There was an allocated case officer during the relevant period.

Back to top

Analysis

Annual Review of the EHC Plan

26. Councils must review an EHC Plan at least annually. After the review meeting, they must decide whether to maintain, amend or cease the Plan, and notify the parent of that decision within four weeks. Mrs X said Y’s annual review was due in July 2024 but did not take place on time. In her Stage 1 complaint, she said attempts had been made in September 2024 to arrange the review, but it had still not been agreed. She said this delayed her appeal rights and meant support had not been updated.
27. The Council’s own evidence shows the previous annual review took place in July 2023, and the next annual review meeting did not take place until 14 November 2024. The Council later issued a Notice of Amendment on 11 December 2024 and an amended final EHC Plan on 7 February 2025.
28. The Council has accepted there was delay in progressing the annual review. In response to my enquiries, it said the delay meant the amendment process, and therefore the point at which new appeal rights arose, happened later than it would have done had the review taken place within the required timescale.
29. I am satisfied the Council was at fault. The annual review due in 2024 was not completed within the required timescale. The Council does not dispute this and accepted the point in its Stage 2 complaint response.
30. I have seen further evidence that, following the amended final EHC Plan issued in February 2025, Mrs X pursued mediation and additional provision in the form of Bespoke Learning Boxes was later agreed and reflected in a further amended final EHC Plan issued on 30 June 2025. The Council says this request was not agreed when the amended final EHC Plan was issued on 7 February 2025 because it considered Y’s needs could be met from within the provision already funded through her EOTAS package. It says the request was later reconsidered through mediation on 31 March 2025 and specific additional funding was then agreed.
31. I accept the Bespoke Learning Boxes were not provision already contained within Y’s EHC Plan which the Council had failed to implement. However, the request formed part of the annual review process and the Council’s delayed completion of that process meant its decision on the requested provision was also reached later. This in turn delayed the point at which Mrs X could challenge that decision through mediation or appeal. I therefore find the injustice arising from the delayed annual review was not limited to delayed appeal rights alone. On balance, it also delayed the route by which Mrs X secured agreement to additional provision for Y and meant Y accessed that provision later than she otherwise would have done. I do not consider it would be safe to treat the whole period from when the annual review ought to have taken place as lost provision, because the provision was not agreed at that stage and remained the subject of a genuine dispute. I have taken account of that uncertainty when considering the remedy.

EOTAS funding and educational provision

32. Councils must secure the special educational provision set out in Section F of an EHC Plan. Mrs X says the Council failed to ensure timely agreement and payment of EOTAS funding. She says a provider asked in May 2024 for a decision on additional resources needed to deliver Y’s education programme, further enquiries were made in June 2024, but no decision was provided. She also says problems with funding and payment put Y’s provision at risk and created uncertainty about whether it would continue.
33. The Council’s Stage 2 response recorded Mrs X’s concerns that the EOTAS budget did not adequately cover Y’s provision and that issues with payments through People Plus had affected delivery of provision. The Council said the EOTAS package agreed following the annual review covered the provision set out in Section J of the amended EHC Plan issued in mid February 2025.
34. I have seen evidence that there were problems with the administration of funding and payment. The papers show delay in responding to requests about additional resources in 2024. They also show that in early 2025 there were concerns from those involved in delivering Y’s provision about outstanding payments and whether provision could continue without urgent clarification.
35. I am satisfied there was fault in the way the Council handled this aspect of the case. The evidence shows delay in responding to requests about additional resources and delay in resolving concerns about outstanding payments. The Council’s own Stage 2 response acknowledged that People Plus and Fun Development had contacted it repeatedly in February 2025 about outstanding invoices and that it took some time to respond while the financial aspects of the revised EOTAS package were being approved. That was fault.
36. The available evidence does not enable me to make a clear finding that Y missed a specific amount of educational provision as a result. I note the original complaint referred to a “potential stop” in Y’s educational provision, rather than clearly stating that sessions had in fact been missed. I have also seen evidence showing real concern in early 2025 about outstanding payments and whether provision could continue without urgent clarification. However, the Council has consistently said Mrs X’s advocate later told it that Y had not missed any sessions, although I have not seen that underlying communication. On balance, I am not satisfied the evidence shows Y missed a specific amount of educational provision. I am, however, satisfied the Council’s poor administration created avoidable uncertainty about the continuity of Y’s provision and caused distress, frustration, and time and trouble to Mrs X.
37. I therefore find fault by the Council in the way it handled the funding and payment arrangements for Y’s EOTAS provision. That fault caused injustice in the form of uncertainty, avoidable distress, and time and trouble. I do not make a finding, on the evidence currently available, that Y missed a specific amount of education as a result.

Transport funding

38. Councils are responsible for making suitable travel arrangements for eligible children where necessary to enable them to attend education. Mrs X says Y had been receiving a personal transport budget as part of her overall package, but that this ended in June 2024 without notice or explanation. She says this affected Y’s ability to access education and that there were ongoing discussions between SENAR and the Transport team about who was responsible for funding transport to and from Y’s tutor.
39. In response to my enquiries, the Council said a transport application had originally been made in December 2023 but was withdrawn because Y did not have a fixed school placement. It said a further application was received in January 2025, and once SENAR confirmed the relevant educational sites, a personal transport budget was approved and backdated to the beginning of October 2023. The Council says this was communicated in late February 2025.
40. The evidence available to me shows there was confusion and delay in the handling of transport funding. Mrs X’s complaint consistently said transport support had previously been in place and then stopped without explanation. The Council’s response was that the earlier application had been withdrawn because Y did not have a fixed placement and that arrangements were only regularised after a fresh application in January 2025. On the papers I have seen, there was no clear and timely resolution of responsibility between the Council’s SEND and transport functions during the relevant period.
41. I am satisfied there was fault in the Council’s handling of this issue. Even allowing for the complexity of Y’s EOTAS arrangements, the Council should have provided clear information about whether transport funding was available, who was responsible for deciding it, and what Mrs X needed to do if a further application was required. The evidence shows this did not happen promptly.
42. However, I note the Council says the personal transport budget was later approved and backdated to the beginning of October 2023. On that basis, the main financial injustice arising from transport costs appears to have been remedied. I have not seen enough evidence to make a clear finding that Y missed a specific amount of provision because of lack of transport. The remaining injustice from this issue is therefore the avoidable uncertainty, frustration, and time and trouble caused to Mrs X while she tried to establish how Y’s transport would be funded.
43. I therefore find fault in the Council’s handling of transport funding. That fault caused injustice to Mrs X in the form of uncertainty, frustration, and time and trouble. On the evidence I have seen, I do not make a finding of outstanding financial loss or a specific loss of education on this issue.

Laptop / ICT provision

44. Councils must secure the special educational provision set out in Section F of an EHC Plan. The material I have seen shows that Y’s EHC Plan provided that she would be given the resources and equipment needed for her curriculum, including ICT equipment such as a laptop.
45. Mrs X says the Council failed to provide the laptop specified in Section F. The Council’s response to my enquiries was not that this provision was absent from the Plan. Rather, it said the amended final EHC Plan issued in early February 2025 included ICT equipment, including a laptop, and that this was to be funded through the agreed personal budget. It also said it received confirmation from one of the providers in mid November 2024 that Mrs X would purchase the appropriate laptop and associated software package.
46. I have also seen Section J of the amended EHC Plan. This sets out the total personal budget to be paid via People Plus. That breakdown includes a specific “resource budget / trips-activities-events budget” of £2,500.
47. On the evidence I have seen, I am satisfied there was fault in the way the Council secured this element of Section F provision. While the amended final EHC Plan and Section J show that ICT equipment was intended to be funded through the personal budget, the evidence also shows there was uncertainty about whether the laptop could be purchased and reimbursed through People Plus, and that by March 2025 it had still not been obtained because the family was not in a position to pay upfront and await reimbursement while the available balance was low.
48. The Council’s later evidence indicates the laptop was purchased on 8 June 2025. I therefore do not consider this issue caused a separate significant injustice beyond the wider uncertainty, distress and time and trouble already identified. However, the Council’s duty was not simply to identify a funding route in principle, but to secure the provision in a way that made it practically accessible without avoidable delay and uncertainty. That did not happen here and I therefore find fault.
49. This fault contributed to the wider injustice in this case. It caused Mrs X avoidable uncertainty, distress and time and trouble, and it also meant Y did not have timely access to a required element of Section F provision.

Communication and case management

50. Councils should communicate clearly and in a timely way with families and those involved in delivering provision, particularly where they are responsible for securing support under an EHC Plan. Mrs X says communication between the family, professionals and the Council was poor, that emails were not responded to or were responded to late, and that there was confusion about who was managing Y’s case.
51. The Council’s own complaint responses and enquiry response accept there were periods when communication was not timely. In its Stage 2 response, it said correspondence sent to SENAR officers between May and July 2024 appeared not to have been responded to. It also said People Plus and Fun Development contacted the Council repeatedly in February 2025 about outstanding invoices and that it took some time to respond while financial aspects of the revised EOTAS package were being approved.
52. The Council also said Louise Kodua continued to manage Y’s case, and in response to my enquiries said the case was overseen by the Area Team Manager for the East Reviews Team and allocated to Louise Kodua. While the Council said it could not identify how confusion arose, the evidence of delayed and incomplete responses supports Mrs X’s account that there was uncertainty about who was taking responsibility for progressing matters.
53. I am satisfied the Council was at fault in its communication and administrative handling of the case. This was not an isolated delay. The evidence shows periods of non-response, delay in replying to the family and providers, and poor coordination between those dealing with annual review, payments and transport issues. That was fault.
54. This fault caused injustice. Mrs X was put to avoidable time and trouble in chasing responses and trying to establish who was dealing with the different aspects of Y’s case. It also caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty at a time when she was already trying to secure provision for Y. I therefore find fault in the Council’s communication and case management. That fault caused injustice to Mrs X in the form of frustration, uncertainty, and time and trouble.

Back to top

Agreed action

55. I consider the Council’s proposed remedy of £500 does not fully capture all of the injustice identified in this investigation. The Council offered that sum at Stage 2 as a symbolic payment for the delayed annual review and poor communication, and the time and trouble in pursuing the complaint. My findings go further. In addition to those faults, I have also found fault in the Council’s handling of EOTAS funding / provider payment issues, transport funding, and the way it secured the laptop / ICT provision. Those faults caused Mrs X further avoidable uncertainty, frustration, distress, and time and trouble. I have also found the delayed annual review / amendment process delayed Y’s access to additional provision later agreed following mediation. In the circumstances, I consider a total payment of £1,750 is a more proportionate remedy for the injustice identified.
56. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mrs X for the delays in completing Y’s annual review, the poor handling of EOTAS funding and payments, the poor handling of transport funding, the poor communication and case management in this case, and the way it secured the laptop / ICT provision;
2. pay Mrs X a total of £1,750, less any amount already paid, made up of:
• £750 to recognise the avoidable frustration, uncertainty, distress, and time and trouble caused to Mrs X by the faults identified; and
• £1,000 as a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice to Y arising from the delayed access to additional provision later agreed following mediation.
1. the Council should review this case to identify any learning for its SENAR, finance and transport functions about:
• the need to complete annual reviews within statutory timescales;
• the need to respond promptly to requests and queries from families and providers where provision is funded through a personal budget or EOTAS arrangement; and
• the need to provide clear and consistent information where responsibility is shared across different Council teams.
57. The Council will complete actions a to b within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision, and action point c within three months of the Ombudsman's final decision. The Council will provide the Ombudsman with evidence it has completed these actions.

Back to top

Decision

58. I found fault with the Council in the way it dealt with Y’s annual review, EOTAS funding, transport funding, the laptop / ICT provision in Section F, and communication with Mrs X. These faults caused Mrs X injustice in the form of avoidable frustration, uncertainty, distress, and time and trouble. I also found the delayed annual review / amendment process delayed Y’s access to additional provision later agreed following mediation. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman