Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed her son Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review and failed to act on a personal budget request. She said the Council made errors in the amended EHC Plan and failed to correct them. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed reimbursing invoices for provision and delayed responding to her Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaints. We find fault in the Council’s actions. This caused financial loss, undue distress, time and trouble to Mrs X. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to act on a personal budget request she made at her son Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) Annual Review. She said the Council wrongly claimed in the amended EHC Plan that she did not request a personal budget and failed to amend this following her formal complaint. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to reimburse her for invoices she submitted for therapy provision. She also says the Council delayed the annual review process of Y’s EHC Plan and there were significant delays in the Council’s Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaint responses.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s failures caused her significant stress, frustration, and uncertainty. She says she repeatedly had to chase the Council, re-explain the issue to different officers, and deal with conflicting information.

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 X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs 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 legislation and guidance

Personal Budgets

8. A Personal Budget is the amount of money the council has identified it needs to pay to secure the provision in a child or young person’s EHC Plan. One way that councils can deliver a Personal Budget is through direct payments. These are cash payments made to the child’s parent or the young person so they can commission the provision in the EHC Plan themselves.
9. A child’s parent or the young person has the right to request a Personal Budget when the council has completed an EHC needs assessment and confirmed it will prepare an EHC Plan. They may also request a Personal Budget during a statutory review of an existing EHC Plan.
10. The final allocation of a Personal Budget must be sufficient to secure the agreed provision specified in the EHC Plan and must be set out as part of that provision.
11. If the council refuses a request for a direct payment, it must set out the reasons in writing and inform the child’s parent or the young person of their right to request a formal review of the decision.
12. The council’s (and health commissioning body’s where relevant) duty to secure or arrange provision specified in EHC Plans is only discharged through a direct payment when the provision has been acquired for, or on behalf of, the child’s parent or the young person.

Reviewing EHC Plans

13. 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 cease to maintain 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) 
14. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal.
15. 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

16. Mrs X’s child, Y, has an EHC Plan. An annual review of the EHC Plan took place in June 2024. Mrs X requested a personal budget at the review to fund a weekly therapy provision to deliver part of the support specified in Section F of the EHC Plan.
17. The annual review paperwork recorded this request. But the Council did not make a timely decision following the review. It issued an amendment notice in October 2024 and then issued a final amended EHC Plan in January 2025, almost seven months after the annual review. The amended EHC Plan incorrectly said in Section J that no personal budget was required and that the parent had not requested one.
18. Mrs X challenged this error at both the draft and final stages of the EHC Plan and asked the Council to correct the plan. The Council did not amend the EHC Plan.
19. Council officers asked Mrs X to submit invoices for the therapy provision from December 2024 onwards and to provide her bank details. Mrs X gave invoices as requested. Internal Council correspondence shows officers forwarded invoices for approval and chased managers for decisions. Officers gave inconsistent explanations during this period about whether the provision was being funded as a personal budget, alternative provision, or a reimbursement outside formal processes.
20. Mrs X complained to the Council in October 2024 about the delays in the annual review process and outcome of the personal budget request. The Council issued a stage 1 response in January 2025 and a stage 2 response in June 2025, both outside its published complaint timescales. The Council offered Mrs X a financial remedy of £800 in the stage 1 response. This included £400 to remedy the delays in the annual review process, £200 for the time and trouble in raising this and £200 for the delay in providing a complaint response. Mrs X accepted this offer. She said the Council did not make this payment and escalated the complaint to stage 2.
21. The Council accepted at stage 2 it had failed to properly consider the personal budget request made at the annual review and acknowledged this was a process error and a failure to meet its duty under section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014. The Council also confirmed it had agreed to reimburse Mrs X for the therapy provision costs and said that payments should have been processed.
22. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman on 20 June 2025 because the EHC Plan remained inaccurate, reimbursement had been delayed, and the matter had still not been fully resolved.

Analysis and Findings

23. The Council failed to progress the June 2024 annual review of Y’s EHC Plan within the statutory timeframes. This should have been completed within 12 weeks but took almost seven months. This is fault. The Council did not properly consider or decide the personal budget request in line with the SEND Code of Practice. This is also fault, which the Council accepted.
24. The Council also issued an amended final EHC Plan that contained incorrect information, stating that no Personal Budget had been requested. This was wrong and remained uncorrected despite Mrs X raising the issue at both draft and final stages. This is fault.
25. In addition, the Council asked Mrs X to submit invoices and bank details without first making a clear and transparent funding decision. It delayed reimbursing costs it later accepted it should pay and gave inconsistent and confusing explanations about how the provision was being funded.
26. The Council also delayed responding to Mrs X’s complaints and did not keep her informed about when payments were made or why delays had occurred.
27. The Council has taken some action to remedy the fault. It accepted it had failed to consider the personal budget request and agreed to reimburse the therapy provision costs. However, these actions occurred late and only after Mrs X chased and escalated. The Council paid Mrs X £800 to recognise delay, time and trouble in February 2025 for the delays in annual review process and complaints process at that point.

Injustice

28. Mrs X experienced financial uncertainty because she paid for therapy provision without knowing whether or when the Council would reimburse her. The delay caused avoidable pressure on her finances, although the Council said payments should now have been made.
29. Mrs X also experienced distress and frustration. She repeatedly had to chase the Council, re-explain the same issues to different officers, and deal with conflicting information over an extended period. Mrs X spent significant time and trouble pursuing reimbursement.
30. The Council’s eventual payments will reduce the ongoing financial impact but do not remove the distress caused by the delay, poor communication, and failure to properly manage the personal budget request.

Back to top

Action

31. Within 4 weeks of our final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. 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 in my findings.
• Confirm in writing the reimbursement to Mrs X for the invoices regarding the therapy provision has been made. Provide evidence of the payment to Mrs X and the Ombudsman.
• Pay £300 to Mrs X for the additional distress, delay, time and trouble caused by the Council’s actions.
32. Within 3 months of our final decision, the Council will:
• Review the Council’s complaints process to ensure financial remedies are monitored and payments made efficiently.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman