Summary: The Council was at fault as it failed to carry out appropriate planning for the ending of Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan when he reached the age of 25. This caused him distress and uncertainty and his sister, Miss X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise, make payments and through training or guidance remind staff of the importance of post 25 transition planning.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to carry out appropriate post age 25 planning for her brother Mr Y in preparation for the ending of his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and its communication was poor. This meant he was unable to complete a two year course and it caused avoidable distress and uncertainty over what would happen when Mr Y turned 25.

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. 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)
4. 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

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I gave Miss X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

7. 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.
8. 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) 
9. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to end (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.
10. The law states a council may continue to maintain an EHC Plan for a young person until the end of the academic year during which the young person reaches the age of 25 (section 46 of the Children and Families Act 2014).
11. The statutory code of practice sets out that for young people with EHC Plans, where it is known that a young person will soon be completing their time in education and training, the council should use the review prior to ceasing the EHC Plan to agree the support and specific steps needed to help the young person to engage with services and provision they be accessing once they have left education. It goes on to say the transition should be planned with timescales and clear responsibilities and the young person should know what will happen when their EHC Plan ceases (paragraphs 8.76-8.78 pf the code of practice)

What happened

12. Mr Y has a physical health condition and a diagnosis of a learning disability. Mr Y’s EHC Plan included support with initiating conversations, a modified learning environment with programmes to develop his literacy and numeracy and programmes to develop independent travel and life skills. It also included physiotherapy and encouragement to actively engage in social activities and exercise outside of school. Mr Y attended a mainstream college.
13. The college arranged Mr Y’s annual review meeting on behalf of the Council in May 2024. The Council did not attend. The meeting noted there was a progression route at college for a further course. The review noted ‘the issue was also raised of [Mr Y] turning 25 next academic year where his EHC Plan would normally cease, however the [next level] course is a two year course, the local authority would have to confirm what would happen in this case’. An additional note in June 2024 said Mr Y had confirmed he wished to progress to the next level course.
14. Miss X complained to the Council. She requested Mr Y be supported at college for another year after he reached 25. She said the Council had not supported Mr Y and had not attended the last two annual review meetings and requested the EHC Plan be extended another year (when Mr Y would be 26). The Council responded in July 2024. It said the caseworker was due to attend the review, but the date was rearranged at Miss X’s request and so they could no longer attend and sent their apologies. It said it would process the review paperwork.
15. The Council said the case worker had responded to contact they received. It said it understood Mr Y wanted to progress to the next level course. As he turned 25 that year, his Plan would stay in place until the end of the academic year so he could attend the course and complete his pathway. The Council said it could not maintain the EHC Plan beyond July 2025 in line with current legislation.
16. Following the review the Council wrote to Mr X in early August 2024 to advise him there would be no changes to his Plan. The letter also stated the Council would maintain his Plan until July 2025 when it would cease in line with the statutory framework.
17. Miss X emailed Mr Y’s case worker. She asked what would happen as Mr Y’s course was a two year course. The case worker responded that ‘regarding the course being two years this is something that will be looked at by senior management’.
18. In late March 2025 the college emailed the Council to arrange Mr Y’s annual review meeting. Miss X asked for confirmation that Mr Y’s case worker would attend. The caseworker responded that they were no longer Mr Y’s case worker. They said another case worker would attend who had also been copied into the invitation. Miss X was unhappy she was not made aware of the change. Mr Y’s case worker explained they were allocated to an educational setting and the setting was made aware of a change in worker. They said they would conduct a full handover.
19. Miss X complained to the Council. It responded in mid-April. It explained the college was aware of the change in caseworker and had invited the right person to the meeting. It did not agree that the change had impacted Mr Y. It said managers had considered the request to extend Mr Y’s EHC Plan which it had dealt with previously. It did not uphold the complaint. It said discussion around post 25 planning would be held at the annual review meeting.
20. The college held Mr Y’s annual review meeting in early May 2025 which Mr Y’s new caseworker attended. It noted Mr Y was working towards the outcome of improving his social interactions and was continuing to work on his literacy and numeracy skills. He was engaging well with the course but needed extensive support to keep up with his peers. It noted the progression (next steps) were unclear – either year two of the course, employment or adult services. It said the EHC Plan would cease as Mr Y was over 25. The agreed actions were:
• To support Mr Y with careers advice and to engage with the Council for available adult services;
• To progress to year two of the course if possible given Mr Y’s age and the Council’s confirmation that the Plan would cease; and
• Support with an application for disabled student’s allowance.
21. The Council then wrote to Mr Y in late May 2025. It said it had carefully considered the annual review documentation, and the Council would be ceasing the EHC Plan because Mr Y had turned 25.
22. Miss X complained to the Council. It responded in May 2025. It reiterated that all educational settings were kept updated with case worker changes and operational capacity would not allow for service users to be informed. It said it had informed the college. In relation to her request to extend the EHC Plan which Miss X said was not addressed when she first raised it in August 2024, it said this was expected to be addressed as the placement progressed and committing too early could cause confusion. It confirmed the EHC Plan would cease at the end of the academic year. It did not uphold her complaint.
23. Mr Y stopped attending the college in July 2025 as his Plan had ceased. Miss X says Mr Y is now enrolled at an adult college, but this was left for Mr Y’s mother to organise.
24. In response to my enquiries the Council said the family had elected not to pursue contact with adult services. It provided information which it obtained from the college in response to my enquiries which said it had advised Mr Y about post college activity as he was turning 25. The college said it had provided information and signposted him towards a broad range of options and offered careers guidance in late 2024 and early 2025.
25. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to us.

Findings

26. The Council failed to clearly explain the consequences of Mr Y attending a two year college course when his EHC Plan was due to cease after the first year. Miss X specifically asked what would happen regarding the second year and the Council failed to answer her. The Council’s stage one complaint response also did not address this. This was fault.
27. The guidance clearly sets out the Council should use the review prior to ceasing the EHC Plan to agree the support and specific steps needed to help the young person to engage with services and provision they would be accessing once they have left education. There is no evidence the Council did this or assured itself that Mr Y was receiving appropriate support for when he left college. Although the college explained it offered careers guidance to Mr Y, the 2024 and 2025 annual reviews do not record any discussion around exploring the next steps for Mr Y. The Council says Mr Y’s family chose not to pursue contact with adult social care, but it has provided no evidence of this. The lack of appropriate transition planning was fault and not in line with the statutory guidance.
28. Miss X says if she had known at the start of the course that there was no possibility of Mr Y remaining at the college of the second year she could have prepared him for this in advance and started to explore other options. The Council’s fault caused Mr Y distress and uncertainty and caused Miss X uncertainty and frustration.
29. Miss X was also unhappy the Council did not inform them when Mr Y’s case worker changed. The Council has confirmed it does not have capacity to tell family when a person’s case worker changes and explained it had updated the college and the college invited the correct case worker to Mr Y’s annual review. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Agreed Action

30. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mr Y and pay him £500 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty he was caused by the Council’s failure to properly plan for the next steps once his EHC Plan ceased.
2. Apologise to Miss X and pay her £250 to acknowledge the uncertainty and frustration she was caused by the Council’s faults.
31. Within two months of the final decision, the Council has agreed, through training or guidance, to remind case workers of the importance of ensuring appropriate transition planning for those whose EHC Plans are due to end.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I found fault causing injustice which the Council agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman