Summary: The Council was at fault. It did not issue Mrs X’s child, Y’s, decision letter or Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales after Y’s late January 2025 annual review. It also communicated poorly with Mrs X. The symbolic payment the Council has already offered to Mrs X for the delays and associated distress is in line with our guidance on remedies. The Council will pay Mrs X the £500 symbolic payment it previously offered to acknowledge Mrs X’s distress, frustration and uncertainty and also issue Y’s final amended EHC Plan. The Council has already put in place service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review in late January 2025. The Council proposed a remedy which Mrs X was not satisfied with. Mrs X also complained about poor Council communication. Mrs X said Y’s final amended EHC Plan had still not been issued which has resulted in distress, frustration and avoidable time and trouble chasing the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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).
3. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
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 the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered:
• the information Mrs X provided about her complaint and I spoke to her on the telephone;
• the information the Council provided;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, published on our website.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

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. Section B sets out the child’s special educational needs. Section F sets out the educational provision needed by the child or young person and Section I sets out the name and/or type of school.
9. There is a right of appeal to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Tribunal against a decision not to assess, issue or amend an EHC Plan or about the content of the final EHC Plan. Parents must consider mediation before deciding to appeal. An appeal right is only engaged once a decision not to assess, issue or amend a plan has been made and sent to the parent or a final EHC Plan has been issued.

Reviewing EHC Plans

10. 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 take place. The process is only complete when the council issues a decision about the review.
11. Councils can delegate the arrangements for an annual review meeting to a child’s school, but the council retains responsibility for ensuring the review is conducted within the statutory timescales.
12. Within four weeks of a review meeting, the council must notify the child’s parent of its decision to maintain, amend or discontinue the EHC Plan. Once the decision is issued, the review is complete. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176).
13. 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. The Council should issue an amended plan within eight weeks of its notice to the parties that it proposes to amend the plan.

What happened

14. Y has special educational needs and anxiety. Y first had an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in February 2024. Y attends School 1, an independent school.
15. In late January 2025, School 1 held Y’s annual review. This was attended by Y’s mother, Mrs X, and School 1. The annual review record noted Y was happy at School 1 and recommended amendments to Y’s provision relating to communication around their feelings and emotions.
16. In late February 2025 School 1 sent the Council Y’s annual review paperwork.
17. In mid-March 2025 Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council. She said the Council had not issued Y’s draft EHC Plan following their annual review in late January 2025 and it was not in line with the statutory timescales. Mrs X also complained about poor Council communication.
18. In mid-April 2025 the Council sent Mrs X its stage one response. It said it had not met the timescales in sending out the annual review decision and it had not sent Y’s draft amended Plan to Mrs X within the agreed timescales. It apologised. It offered a remedy payment of £300 to reflect the delay. It said Y’s caseworker would try to issue the decision letter and draft amended EHC Plan by late April 2025 at the latest. It also gave Mrs X, Y’s caseworker and their team manager’s contact details.
19. In late April 2025 the Council issued Mrs X with Y’s draft amended EHC Plan and its decision letter to amend Y’s EHC Plan. Mrs X contacted the Council and requested amendments to Y’s draft EHC Plan.
20. In early May 2025 Mrs X was unhappy with the stage one response and escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints process. She said although she had now received Y’s draft amended EHC Plan the draft plan was issued outside the statutory timescales which had directly impacted on Y’s educational provision. She said Y’s case officer did not respond to her emails which was a reoccurring issue and the delay disrupted Y’s access to the support they needed. Mrs X said she would like the Council to reassess the remedy offered because she had experienced considerable uncertainty and stress which could not be addressed by the £300 remedy. Mrs X requested an explanation for the poor communication and the steps the Council was taking to ensure the timely handling and finalisation of Y’s EHC Plan.
21. In mid-May 2025 the Council responded to Mrs X’s stage two escalation request by email. The Council acknowledged there had been delays with issuing Y’s EHC Plan and communication continued to be poor. It said Y’s case officer would contact Mrs X as soon as possible and a new manager was in place who was planning improvements and working with Mrs X. The Council increased its remedy to £500 which included £300 for the delays and £200 for the associated distress. It said it did not anticipate any further unnecessary delays in finalising Y’s EHC Plan. The Council apologised again and said it hoped Mrs X would see improvements in the coming months once the new manager settled into their role. It said it would not escalate Mrs X’s complaint to stage two of its complaints process and it gave Mrs X our contact details.
22. In late May 2025 Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to us.
23. Two days later the Council issued Y’s second draft amended EHC Plan. The Council apologised for the delay. Mrs X contacted the Council and said she was unhappy with the second draft amended Plan. The Council acknowledged Mrs X’s concerns three days later and asked for a meeting with Mrs X which took place in summer 2025.
24. Mrs X said Y had new medical diagnoses in summer 2025 and provided the Council with evidence of these. The Council said it would consider this new evidence. Mrs X said the delays in finalising Y’s EHC Plan meant Y was missing sensory and other new provision based on Y’s new medical diagnoses. Mrs X also wanted Y to have an educational psychologist review.
25. In early November 2025 the Council issued Y’s third draft amended EHC Plan. Mrs X gave comments on this document.
26. At the time of writing this decision the Council had not issued Y’s final EHC Plan.

My findings

Annual review delays and communication

27. We expect councils to follow statutory timescales set out in law, Regulations and Code. We are likely to find fault where there are significant breaches of those timescales.
28. School 1 held Y’s annual review in late January 2025. To be in line with the statutory guidance the Council should have told Mrs X if it intended to maintain, amend or discontinue Y’s EHC Plan within four weeks of the annual review, by late February 2025. The Council said it did not receive the annual review paperwork from School 1 until late February 2025 but it should have chased this with School 1. The evidence shows the Council issued its decision letter to amend Y’s EHC Plan when it sent Mrs X the first version of Y’s draft amended Plan in late April 2025. This was a delay of approximately nine weeks and was fault causing Mrs X frustration and uncertainty.
29. To be in line with the statutory guidance the Council should have issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan by late April 2025. The Council has issued two more draft Plans and Y has also received two new medical diagnoses in summer 2025 which the Council is still considering. However, the Council has still not issued Y’s final EHC Plan which is fault causing Mrs X continuing frustration and uncertainty. The fault has also delayed Mrs X’s appeal rights to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Tribunal.
30. Mrs X also complained about poor Council communication. She said her emails were ignored or not responded to promptly. The Council acknowledged the poor communication. It said a new manager was in place and hoped to improve its communication with Mrs X.
31. The Council has already apologised for the poor communication, delays and associated distress and offered Mrs X a total remedy of £500, including £300 for the delay and additional £200 for the distress caused. This remedy is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and would partly remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to pay Mrs X a £500 symbolic payment and also finalise Y’s EHC Plan.

Lost provision

32. This investigation is unable to consider any lost provision Y may have missed because of the delays and if any changes to Y’s provision may have been made earlier. This is because it is not known what provision will be included in Y’s final EHC Plan. I do not consider a symbolic payment for any uncertainty is needed. Once Mrs X receives Y’s final amended EHC Plan, she will have the opportunity to appeal to the SEND Tribunal which is best placed to consider the impact of any lost provision to Y.
33. The Ombudsman has already made recommendations to this Council on similar cases. The Council has agreed to review its procedures for annual reviews to ensure they comply with the relevant legislation and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the action plan it has in place to address how it will meet statutory timescales for annual reviews. On this basis no further recommendations were needed.

Back to top

Action

34. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
1. pay Mrs X a total of £500 to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to her by the Council’s failure to issue a decision letter and Y’s final EHC Plan in line with statutory timescales following Y’s annual review and its poor communication. This is in line with the Council’s previous remedy offer; and
2. issue Y’s final amended EHC Plan and give Mrs X her appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal to avoid her ongoing distress, frustration and uncertainty.
35. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. I have completed my investigation finding fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy the injustice caused. The Council has already put in place an action plan to improve its service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman