Summary: We found fault with the Council delaying outside the statutory timescales in reviewing Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and deciding whether it should reassess Mrs X child. We also found fault with the Council failing to provide suitable education for one term and failing to ensure delivery of Y’s full Education, Health and Care Plan provision. We also found fault with the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s contacts and complaints. The Council agreed to issue an apology and a financial payment to Mrs X for the injustice the Council’s fault caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed reviewing and updating her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
2. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to deliver her child’s EHC Plan provision from the summer term of 2024 to the start of the winter term in 2024 and failed to provide suitable education for nine months.
3. Mrs X complained about the content of the subsequent EHC Plan produced by the Council, its refusal to reassess her child’s EHC Plan in 2025 and delays in completing the annual review in 2025.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
8. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
9. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. I have investigated Mrs X’s complaint from 22 May 2024 to the end of May 2025.
11. I have not investigated matters before 22 May 2024. This is because this was beyond 12 months from Mrs X bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman and there is no good reason Mrs X could not have brought her complaint to us sooner. While I have included reference to some events before this date, this is only for context.
12. I have ended my investigation at the end of May 2025. The Council issued its stage two complaint response in May 2025 and carried out associated actions with the complaint response by the end of May 2025. Matters since this date would be the subject of a new complaint to the Council as the Ombudsman must give the Council opportunity to respond to any complaint first.
13. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
14. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the content of her child’s EHC Plan. This is because the content of a child’s EHC Plan is appealable to the Tribunal as the appropriate body to consider any such complaints.
15. I have also not investigated the Council’s decision to refuse to complete a reassessment of Mrs X’s child’s EHC Plan. This was also appealable to the Tribunal as the appropriate body to consider this matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

16. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
17. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Rules and regulations

Education, Health and Care Plans

18. An Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) is a legal document which sets out a description of a child's needs (what he or she can and cannot do). It says what needs to be done to meet those needs by education, health and social care. 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. 
19. Once the Council completes the EHCP it has a legal duty to deliver the educational and social care provision set out in the plan. The local health care provider will have the duty to deliver the health care provision.
20. 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) 
21. 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.
22. The Ombudsman can look at any delay in the assessment and creation of an EHCP as well as any failure by the Council to deliver the provision within an EHCP.
23. The council must decide whether to conduct a reassessment of a child or young person’s EHC Plan if this is requested by the child’s parent, the young person or their educational placement. The council may also decide to complete a reassessment if it thinks one is necessary.
24. The council can refuse a request for a reassessment if less than six months have passed since a previous EHC needs assessment. It can also refuse a request if it does not think it is necessary, for example because it does not feel a child or young person’s needs have changed significantly.
25. The council must tell the child’s parent or the young person whether it will complete an EHC needs reassessment within 15 calendar days of receiving the request. If the decision is not to reassess, the council must also provide information about the right to appeal that decision to the Tribunal.

Alternative provision of education

26. Councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils who are out of school because of exclusion, illness or for other reasons, if they would not receive suitable education without such arrangements. [The provision generally should be full-time unless it is not in the child’s interests.] (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision.
27. This applies to all children of compulsory school age living in the local council area, whether or not they are on the roll of a school. (Statutory guidance ‘Alternative Provision’ January 2013)
28. Suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have. (Education Act 1996, section 19(6))
29. The courts have considered the circumstances where the section 19 duty applies. Caselaw has established that a council will have a duty to provide alternative education under section 19 if there is no suitable education available to the child which is “reasonably practicable” for the child to access. The “acid test” is whether educational provision the council has offered is “available and accessible to the child”. (R (on the application of DS) v Wolverhampton City Council 2017)
30. We have issued guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to provide education for children who, for whatever reason, do not attend school full-time. Out of school, out of sight? published July 2022
31. We made six recommendations. Councils should:

• consider the individual circumstances of each case and be aware that a council may need to act whatever the reason for absence (except for minor issues that schools deal with on a day-to-day basis) – even when a child is on a school roll;
• consult all the professionals involved in a child's education and welfare, taking account of the evidence when making decisions;
• consider (based on all the evidence) whether to require attendance at school or provide the child with suitable Alternative Provision:
• keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing it if a child’s capacity to learn increases:
• work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to mainstream education as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary:
• put the chosen action into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.

32. Where councils arrange for schools or other bodies to carry out their functions on their behalf, the council remains responsible. Therefore councils should retain oversight and control to ensure their duties are properly fulfilled.
33. Government guidance on a council’s section 19 duties recommends councils arrange education for a child from the sixth day of absence when a child is absent for non-medical reasons. Government guidance recommends for medical issues that a council considers its Section 19 duty to provide education where it is clear the absence is for more than 15 school days. When a council arranges alternative education on medical grounds, that education should begin as soon as possible, and at the latest by the sixth day of a child’s absence.
34. Our role is to check councils carry out their duties properly and provide suitable education for children who would not otherwise receive it. We do not have the power to consider the actions of schools.

Council complaints policy

35. The Council has a two-stage complaints process. At stage one the Council says it will provide a full complaint response within 15 working days of receipt of a complaint. If a person is dissatisfied with the stage one response they can request consideration at stage two. The Council says it aims to provide a response at stage two within 15 working days of request.

What happened

36. In July 2023, the Council produced a Final EHC Plan for Mrs X’s child, Y. This EHC Plan detailed Y’s Section F provision with most provided by Y’s Key Person and teaching staff. This EHC Plan detailed the Council would also make a:
• Referral for an Occupational Therapy assessment for Y.
• Re-referral for therapeutic support for Y.
• Re-referral for family support.
37. In January 2024, Y’s school confirmed with the Council that Y came into school for the first day of term but has not engaged in the reintegration plan since. The Council did not agree to provide Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) because it decided the school was accessible education for Y.
38. At the end of April 2024, Mrs X reported to the Council the reintegration plans for Y were going well until Y needed to engage with other children. Mrs X said Y’s disability also impacted their sleep which hindered attendance. Mrs X said the school was supportive but the reintegration plans were not working.
39. The Council held an EHC Plan annual review for Y on 22 May 2024. The EHC Plan confirmed Y was on a reduced timetable and had been absent from school for more than 15 consecutive days. Y’s school confirmed it had exhausted all avenues of support to reintegrate Y and agreed with Mrs X that EOTAS was the correct course of action. The Council agreed to explore this and recommended amending Y’s EHC Plan.
40. The Council agreed to provide EOTAS for Y three weeks later. The Council said it was not appropriate for Y to receive educational provision at school. The Council agreed to five hours of tutoring rising to twenty hours, a Speech and Language Therapy assessment and mental health mentoring for Y.
41. The Council started to provide six hours of tutoring for Y in August 2024 and decided to amend Y’s EHC Plan, producing a draft EHC Plan for Y detailing the agreed EOTAS provision.
42. In November 2024, the Council completed the SALT assessment of Y with the report completed in December 2024.
43. The Council spoke with Mrs X about sourcing mental health sessions for Y in December 2024. Mrs X said Y’s tutor did not think this would be helpful for Y and instead suggested play based therapy.
44. In January 2025, the Council produced an amended Final EHC Plan for Y. This EHC Plan confirmed provision of EOTAS and a SALT assessment but no reference to mentoring or play therapy. The Council removed reference to the therapeutic support, family support and Occupational Therapy from the previous EHC Plan. The Council shared this with Mrs X in February 2025 and detailed her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.
45. Mrs X requested a reassessment of Y’s needs as she believed the Final EHC Plan produced by the Council did not reflect Y’s significantly changed needs since the review meeting. Mrs X also requested copies of the documents the Council relied on when producing Y’s amended final EHC Plan. And, Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council about delays in production of the EHC Plan and the content of the EHC Plan.
46. In March 2025, the Council started to explore play therapy options for Y.
47. In April 2025, the Council refused Mrs X’s request for reassessment and advised the same outcome could be achieved through an EHC Plan annual review. The Council detailed Mrs X’s appeal rights to this decision.
48. The Council also provided its stage one complaint response in which it said:
• It accepted delays in finalising and sharing Y’s EHC Plan following the annual review meeting in May 2024.
• It was now pursuing play therapy for Y instead of mental health mentoring and hoped this would start after the school Easter holidays.
• It had completed a SALT assessment of Y in November 2024 which recommended a 6-week block of therapy which it would add to Y’s EHC Plan at the next annual review. The Council acknowledged Y had gone two terms without SALT provision from September 2024 to April 2025.
• It failed to provide mental health support or therapy for Y.
• It apologised for its poor communication with Mrs X.
• It would pay Mrs X a total of £1,500 for the fault it had identified and the impact of this on Mrs X and Y.
49. Mrs X sought consideration of her complaint at stage two of the Council’s process. Mrs X said the Council:
• Delayed in its decision to decline reassessment.
• Failed to provide education for Y from May 2024 until the tutor was put in place.
• The Council continued to fail to provide EHC Plan provision through SALT and mental health support.
50. In May 2025, the Council provided a stage two complaint response. The Council offered a further £100 for the delay in making its decision not to reassess Y. And, the Council offered £1,000 for Y’s missed educational provision from May 2024 to the end of the academic year caused by its delays. The Council said it had now put SALT provision in place.
51. Mrs X said she did not consider her complaint was resolved. Mrs X said this was because the Council had not arranged a new annual review, she disputed the content of the EHC Plan and the Council had not included her comments in the EHC Plan produced in January 2025. Mrs X also advised Y had missed education from October 2023, not May 2024.
52. The Council responded to advise the decision not to reassess and content of the EHC Plan, including Mrs X’s comments, were all appealable to the SEND Tribunal. The Council reiterated its position from the stage two complaint response about the monetary award for missed provision. The Council provided Mrs X with copies of the EHC Plan documents at the end of May 2025.

Analysis

EHC Plan review delays

53. The Council held an annual review for Y’s EHC Plan on 22 May 2024. This meant the Council had until 19 June 2024 to decide whether to amend Y’s EHC Plan. The Council only decided to amend Y’s plan in August 2024. This was outside the statutory timescales and was fault.
54. Since the Council decided to amend Y’s EHC Plan it had until early October 2024 to amend the plan. The Council failed to share the amended Final EHC Plan with Mrs X until February 2024. This was outside the statutory timescales and was fault.
55. Overall, the Council delayed by 26 weeks outside the statutory timescales from the annual review meeting to production of the Final EHC Plan. This fault caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty over whether provision in the plan was up-to-date. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X and offered £800 for this delay. This is on the higher end of what the Ombudsman would look to recommend for this delay. I consider the Council has already made a suitable offer to address the injustice caused by this fault.

Request to reassess

56. The Council had 15 working days to respond to Mrs X’s request for a reassessment of Y’s EHC Plan. The Council declined to reassess Y after 33 working days. This delay is fault causing distress and uncertainty to Mrs X.
57. When the Council detailed its decision not to reassess Y it outlined Mrs X’s appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal. The Council acted correctly in doing this.
58. The Council has already apologised to Mrs X and offered £100 for the impact of its delay. This is in line with what the Ombudsman would look to recommended for this fault and I consider the Council has made a suitable offer.

Missed education

59. The Council agreed to explore EOTAS provision for Y in May 2024 but failed to put this in place until August 2024. In the Council’s complaint response it acknowledged it failed to provide education for Y from May 2024 to the end of academic year. The Council offered £1,000 for Y’s missed education for this time.
60. Our guidance on remedies for a loss of educational provision recommends a payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The exact figure should be based on the impact on the child. This should take into account factors such as the amount of provision put in place, a child’s individual needs and whether they are in a key academic year.
61. Y missed just over half a term of education because of the Council’s fault. The Council’s offer of £1,000 equates to £2,000 over a full term and is at the higher end of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. I consider this is an appropriate and proportionate award to reflect Y’s individual circumstances including the loss of any EHC Plan provision associated with school education.
62. From August 2024, the Council put in place six hours of tuition for Y with the plan to review this and increase up to twenty hours in line with Y’s ability to cope. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make and I do not find fault. From August 2024 up to the end of my investigation the Council has kept Y’s situation under review. Mrs X has not complained about the tutoring on offer but about the delays in putting this in place. I found neither fault nor injustice to Y through the Council’s actions from August 2024 about tutoring provision.

Failure to deliver EHC Plan provision

63. From May 2024 to February 2025, the Council was responsible for delivering Y’s EHC Plan provision from the July 2023 Final EHC Plan. The Council had no duty to deliver the EOTAS provision agreed on in June 2024 until it formally included this in an updated Final EHC Plan in February 2025. From February 2025, the Council was responsible for delivery of the provision in this plan as the updated plan.
64. Most of Y’s EHC Plan provision was designed to be delivered by Y’s Key Person or school teachers. I have already addressed this from May 2024 to the end of the academic year in paragraph 61. From August 2024, the Key Person or teacher provision would be provided by Y’s tutor. Most of this provision was consistent in the July 2023 and February 2025 EHC Plans.
65. There were some individual aspects of Y’s EHC Plan which none of Y’s school, Key Person or tutor were delegated to provide. The Council has already accepted it failed to provide therapeutic support or mental health support for Y as detailed in Y’s July 2023 EHC Plan. The Council has offered £200 for the impact of this missed provision on Y. When the Council produced the Final EHC Plan in February 2025, this provision was removed so the Council had no duty to provide this.
66. The Council failed to arrange an Occupational Therapy assessment as outlined in the July 2023 EHC Plan. However, Y’s school completed this assessment and produced a guidance plan following this. This was fault by the Council as it was responsible for overseeing this rather than Y’s school. However, this did not cause an injustice to Y because the assessment was still completed. Again, when the Council produced the Final EHC Plan in February 2025, this provision was removed so the Council had no duty to provide this.
67. Y’s July 2023 EHC Plan did not contain any provision for SALT. Y’s February 2025 EHC Plan only included the need for an assessment and no provision. Since the Council did not update Y’s EHC Plan to contain the SALT provision, as detailed in the EOTAS agreement from June 2024, the Council was under no duty to deliver this. I do not find fault with the Council for failing to deliver provision that was not in an EHC Plan.
68. However, the Council has accepted fault and offered £200 for this missed provision before it put this in place in May 2025. While I cannot find fault with the Council, I will maintain this award because the Council has offered this.
69. The Council failed to deliver the Family Support provision from July 2023; this was fault. This fault caused missed provision impacting Y and the family.
70. Overall, the Council offered £400 for Y’s missed provision for both SALT and mental health support. I consider the Council should offer a further £200 for the missed Family Support provision totalling £600 for the full missed provision from May 2024 up to the end of May 2025.

Complaint handling

71. Mrs X requested copies of the documents the Council relied on when producing the amended EHC plan in February 2025. The Council took until the end of May 2025 to provide these documents. This delay was fault causing frustration to Mrs X.
72. The Council also provided its stage one and stage two complaint responses each two weeks outside its complaint timescales. These delays totalled four weeks; this fault caused further frustration to Mrs X.
73. The Council has already offered £300 for the distress and frustration caused through its handling of Mrs X’s contact and complaints. This is suitable to address the injustice caused to Mrs X by the Council’s fault.

Service improvements

74. The Ombudsman is aware that Leeds Council is currently undergoing a significant transformation programme for its SEND services following previous recommendations from the Ombudsman. The Council has developed an action plan to address previous fault identified. These ongoing actions by the Council directly cross-over with the issues identified in this case. For this reason, I am not making any service improvements.

Back to top

Action

75. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council will:
• Provide an apology to Mrs X and Y for the impact on both Mrs X and Y of the missed Education, Health and Care Plan provision, delays outside the statutory timescales, poor complaint handling and Y’s missed education. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Provide a payment to Mrs X totalling £600 for the impact on Y, and the family, of their missed Education, Health and Care Plan provision from May 2024 to May 2025.
• Provide a payment to Mrs X of £900 for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the delays outside the statutory timescales in producing Y’s Education, Health and Care following the annual review meeting in May 2024 and responding to Mrs X’s request to reassess Y in February 2025.
• Provide a payment to Mrs X of £1,000 for the impact on Y for their missed educational provision from May 2024 to the end of the academic year.
• Provide a payment to Mrs X of £300 for the overall frustration and distress caused through the Council’s handling of Mrs X’s contacts and complaints.
76. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

77. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman