Summary: We upheld a complaint that the Council delayed in issuing Mrs C’s daughter with an updated Education, Health and Care Plan. We also found delay in the Council identifying suitable education provision for her daughter. Mrs C suffered an injustice because of the resulting distress and her daughter suffered an injustice because of the loss of education provision. The Council accepted these findings and at the end of this statement we set out what action it agreed to take to remedy that injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms B complained on behalf of Mrs C, who has a daughter ‘D’ with special educational needs. Ms B complained the Council:

• delayed issuing D with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, following a review held in December 2024;
• delayed in responding to Mrs C’s request that she have a personal budget to buy some of the education provision needed by D;
• failed to make suitable education provision for D, after she could no longer attend school from March 2023 onward.

2. Ms B said as a result D had not received an education suitable for her needs which caused D significant distress. Because D had been out of education for many months, this also caused distress to Mrs C and the rest of her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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.
8. 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)
9. 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

What I did and did not investigate

10. I investigated events between December 2024 and September 2025. I decided that I could not investigate events before December 2024, including the education provision made to D. There were two reasons for this.
11. First, there was the passage of time. Any complaint about events before June 2024 was a late complaint, because it asked us to consider events more than twelve months before Ms B first contacted this office. I knew of no impediment that prevented Mrs C complaining to this office sooner, if unhappy with the actions of the Council’s education service from March 2023 onward. So, I found no good reason to extend my investigation to the time when D first stopped attending school.
12. Second, I noted that if unhappy with the arrangements made for D’s education provision, Mrs C twice had opportunity to appeal those before December 2024. The Council first gave D an EHC Plan in October 2023. It then issued an updated version of that Plan, in a final format, in August 2024. On both occasions Mrs C could have appealed the content of the Plan if unhappy with the school named or provision specified in the Plan. But she chose not to do so. I found no good reasons that justified investigating the arrangements made for D in the 2023 or 2024 plans given that Mrs C had that right.
13. I also decided I could not investigate events after September 2025, as by then we had accepted Mrs C’s complaint for investigation. However, where relevant I noted developments since this date that potentially impacted on any actions recommended by us and later agreed by the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered evidence provided by Ms B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
15. I gave Ms B and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I considered any comments they made, or further evidence they provided, before issuing this final version.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legal and administrative considerations

Special Educational Needs and EHC Plans

16. 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 arrangements to meet them. 
17. The council must arrange for a review of the EHC Plan at least once a year. 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 then takes place. The review completes when the council issues a decision saying if it will amend, maintain or cease 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) 
18. Where the council proposes amending an EHC Plan, it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice. The notice will provide 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). This should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.
19. A council can also undertake a reassessment of a child or young person’s EHC Plan in some circumstances. First, if the child’s parent, the young person or their educational placement asks for one; more than six months has passed since the last assessment and the Council agrees a reassessment necessary. Or second, if the council considers one necessary and so reassesses on its own initiative.
20. If the council undertakes an EHC needs reassessment, it has 14 weeks to issue the final EHC Plan from the date it agreed to reassess.
21. An EHC Plan contains different sections including: 

• Section B: this describes the child or young person’s special educational needs;  
• Section F: this sets out the special educational provision needed by the child or the young person; 
• Section I: this names the school or other educational institution the child or young person will attend. Alternatively, it can name what type of school or educational institution they will attend. Or it can name ‘education other than at school’(EOTAS) provision;
• Section J: this contains details of any personal budget used to fund the provision in the EHC Plan.

22. 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.
23. 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.
24. A parent or young person has the right of appeal to the Tribunal if they disagree with content of sections B, F or I of an EHC Plan. A parent does not have the right to appeal Section J of an EHC Plan. However, they can ask the Council to review its decision and the Council must tell them of that right.

Alternative Provision

25. 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 (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision.
26. The courts have considered the circumstances where the section 19 duty applies. It will apply 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)
27. Suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs they may have. (Education Act 1996, section 19(6))
28. The education provided by the council must be full-time unless the council decides that full-time education would not be in the child’s best interests for reasons of the child’s physical or mental health. (Education Act 1996, section 3A and 3AA)
29. The law does not define full-time education but children with health needs should have provision equivalent to the education they would receive in school. If they receive one-to-one tuition, for example, the hours of face-to-face provision could be less. This is because it is a more concentrated form of provision. (Statutory guidance, ‘Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs’)
30. Where councils arrange for schools or other bodies to carry out their functions on their behalf, the council remains responsible. Therefore, councils should keep oversight and control, ensuring those bodies fulfil their duties.

The Key Facts

31. D has special educational needs. Because of these needs, D experienced difficulties with school attendance and stopped attending school regularly around March 2023 when in year 6 of their education. In October 2023, the Council provided D with an EHC Plan. This named a mainstream school.
32. The Council gave D an updated EHC Plan in August 2024, shortly before she began year 8 of her education. This continued to name a mainstream school. The Plan indicated D would receive education away from school, with her integrating into the school over time.
33. In December 2024 there was a review of D’s Plan. This recorded D failing to meet the objectives set out in her Plan. She was not in school and received six hours a week tuition at home, from a tutoring service, paid for by the school. The school recommended the Council consider naming a specialist placement for D. While Mrs C wanted EOTAS provision for D.
34. At the start of January 2025, the Council wrote to Mrs C giving notice that it would amend D’s Plan. It enclosed a version of the Plan with proposed amendments.
35. Before the end of January, Mrs B wrote on behalf of Ms C requesting a personal budget for Mrs C.
36. In mid-February D’s caseworker told Mrs B she would take the request for a personal budget to a Panel of senior officers. She then told Mrs B the Council would commission EOTAS provision for D. She said the Council ‘mainly’ provided the education wanted by Mrs C through direct commissioning rather than use of a personal budget. The caseworker said the Council would ask the tutoring company supporting D to continue providing its service as part of D’s EOTAS package. If it agreed, the Council would begin commissioning the service directly.

Ms B’s complaint

37. In March 2025 Ms B made a complaint on behalf of Mrs C, in the terms summarised in paragraph 1. Ms B said that following the review of her Plan in December 2024, the Council should have issued an updated final version of the Plan at the start of the month. But the Council had failed to provide this. It said that D had received limited education since March 2023 and that her parents currently spent just over £50 a week ensuring D had some access to mentoring and horse riding. Her mentoring sessions were 30 minutes each week.
38. In its reply the Council provided a summary of the service provided to D from October 2023. It said that in November 2024, Mrs C had asked for an updated education psychology assessment for D, which the Council had agreed. It said that because of this, no annual review of D’s Plan had taken place in December 2024. Instead, the Council had begun a reassessment of D’s needs. The Council said as part of its reassessment it would consider Mrs C’s request for a personal budget.
39. The Council confirmed that it had agreed in principal that D’s Plan would name EOTAS provision moving forward, comprising 25 hours a week study. It would take over commissioning of the tutoring D received and increase this up to 10 hours a week. It would identify a provider to supply the other 15 hours a week provision and would consult providers preferred by Mrs C.
40. Ms B escalated her complaint in April. She said the provision made for D since March 2023 was minimal. She reiterated a review had taken place in December 2024. She said a request for an updated educational psychologist assessment did not necessitate the Council carrying out a full reassessment of need. And that Mrs C still awaited an updated final plan for D and a reply to her personal budget request.
41. The Council gave its final reply to the complaint in May 2025. It now accepted an annual review of D’s Plan had taken place in December 2024. It also recognised Mrs C had not asked it to reassess D’s needs. But that she had also asked for an occupational therapy report. So, it took the view a reassessment remained appropriate. It recognised it had not communicated this clearly. It repeated that it would answer Mrs C’s request for a personal budget when it completed the reassessment.
42. The Council agreed that it would recompense Mrs C for the mentoring costs incurred over 27 weeks and for recommended occupational therapy, which totalled £1376. It would also make a symbolic payment of £300 to recognise Mrs C’s time, trouble and distress in making her complaint.
43. In June 2025, Mrs B complained to this office. Around the same time, she contacted the Council saying Mrs C still awaited a final Plan. Mrs B pointed out the Council had exceeded the timescale also for when it should have completed a reassessment. She reminded the Council Mrs C wanted a personal budget.
44. Mrs B has told me that by June 2025 Mrs C had increased the mentoring support she bought in for D to one hour a week. She also began paying privately for D to receive one hour a week therapeutic support.

Relevant events following Mrs B complaining to this office

45. In September 2025 the Council issued a final Plan for D. It left Section I of the Plan blank. It noted in Section J that Mrs C had asked for a personal budget but did not say if it agreed this.
46. In November 2025 the Council refused Mrs C’s request for a personal budget. It did not provide reasons. Mrs B asked it to review that decision.
47. Also, in November 2025 Mrs C made an appeal to the Tribunal about the content of D’s Plan. She appealed the description of D’s special educational needs in Section B and the content of Section F, saying the Council had not adequately specified D’s education provision.

Findings

The complaint about delay in issuing a final EHC Plan

48. I considered each part of Mrs C’s complaint in turn. I noted first the confusion about whether, after December 2024, the Council embarked on reassessing D’s EHC Plan, as opposed to reviewing it. The documents I saw suggested the Council initially began reviewing the Plan. There was nothing in the notes of the review meeting that took place in December 2024 that suggested it was considering a reassessment instead. And it sent a letter to Mrs C in January 2025 which confirmed its intent to amend D’s Plan following the review.
49. It was not until Mrs B complained, the Council first said it had begun a reassessment, not a review. By then it had agreed to obtain updated education psychology advice and an occupational therapy report. I could see why therefore it thought its actions appeared more in line with a reassessment than a review. Indeed, had it decided it needed to reassess in December 2024 I do not think I would have faulted that. But, as I noted above, there was no evidence the Council made that decision then. And it had not written to Mrs C to contradict what put in writing in January 2025, which left no doubt it was reviewing D’s Plan, not undertaking a reassessment of her needs. So, the Council was at fault for not recording when it decided to carry out a reassessment instead and for not telling Mrs C of this decision.
50. Whatever path the Council embarked on, I found it issued an updated final Plan to D around six months later than it should have. If completing a review of D’s Plan then it should have issued the final Plan to her in early March, eight weeks after sending the notice where it said it would amend the Plan. But if in the alternative, the Council sent the notice in error, having decided to reassess when Mrs C asked for updated educational psychology advice (as it later claimed), then it should have still issued a final plan around this time. Because the Council identified Mrs C making that request in November 2024.
51. I considered this delay caused injustice to Mrs C as distress in three ways. First, for as long as the Council did not issue a final Plan, the exact provision the Council intended to make for D would remain shrouded with some uncertainty. Second, the delay frustrated Mrs C’s appeal rights. Third, it delayed the Council deciding Mrs C’s request for a personal budget, so causing her more uncertainty.
52. I did not find the delay directly impacted on the education D received. This was because by March 2025 the Council had agreed the outline of that moving forward, saying D would receive 25 hours a week provision other than in school. I address below what evidence there was for the Council proceeding to make that provision, in my consideration of the third part of the complaint.

The delay in replying to the personal budget request

53. I found no inherent fault in the Council wanting to consider this request at the point it finalised D’s Plan. Clearly any request for a personal budget has to cross-reference the content of an up-to-date plan. This is because there must be certainty about what provision the child or young person should receive, before a council can set a personal budget.
54. That said, no-one should have to wait months for a council to give its answer to such a request. So, the Council’s ten month delay in replying to Mrs C’s request was a fault. That delay arose directly from the Council failing to finalise D’s Plan as I set out above.
55. Consequently, I did not consider any separable injustice arose from the delay in replying to the personal budget request.
56. I noted the Council’s decision to refuse the personal budget request fell outside the scope of this investigation as it made that decision after September 2025. I noted also Mrs B had asked for a review of the decision, for which the Council had provided limited reasons. If the Council delayed in making its review decision, or if Mrs C was unhappy with its review decision, she had the right to make a further complaint to the Ombudsman. There would be no expectation she make a fresh complaint via the Council’s complaint procedure first, as the review would be an opportunity for the Council to reconsider its decision.

The complaint about lack of education provision

57. I noted above that from March 2025, the Council set out what provision it considered D should receive as part of an EOTAS package. Yet up to September 2025 it had failed to put that provision in place and D received, as she had received in December 2024, just six hours a week tuition. This was clearly a long way from full-time education provision, even after allowing for the greater intensity of such provision.
58. It was disappointing to note the Council did not act immediately after the December review to try and secure more provision for D. I considered by this time it was clear to all parties that D did not have full-time education available to her that was “reasonably practicable” for her to access. Her needs had prevented her accessing her secondary school for four terms despite having an EHC Plan.
59. Even before finalising D’s Plan the Council committed to making more provision to D as part of an EOTAS package. But it had taken only limited steps to put that extra provision in place by September. There was no evidence it made more provision available or accessible to D between January and September 2025 despite accepting she could not access her school, which made only limited home tuition available to her. That was a fault.
60. The injustice caused by this fault was that D did not have access to full time education provision during the spring and summer terms of the 2024-25 academic year. I recognised the evidence this case suggested that D might not have been able to access a full time provision straight away because of her needs. I noted that up to December 2025, she continued to receive just six hours a week tuition, even though I understood there was the opportunity to increase this to ten. However, I had to also take account that some of the provision D had not received (for example occupational therapy) may have helped her to engage more in other types of provision.
61. In cases where we find fault by the Council has resulted in a loss of education provision we will ask the Council to make a symbolic payment. We use a tariff to calculate this in the range of £900 to £2400 a term. I recommended the Council make a symbolic payment in this case based on the mid-point figure of £1650 a term, because of the considerations set out above.

The Council’s complaint handling

62. Finally, I considered the Council’s complaint handling in this case. In its final reply to her complaint the Council said that it recognised it had put Mrs C to time and trouble by complaining. When someone chooses to complain, it is unavoidable they expend some time and effort in doing so. We do not expect councils to remedy that routinely.
63. However, we do expect councils to remedy where the complainant experiences more ‘time and trouble’ than necessary, in pursuing a complaint. There was some of that here, as the Council sent a confusing reply to Mrs C’s stage one complaint which muddled the facts around D’s review. That was a fault and therefore I considered it reasonable the Council make a small symbolic payment to recognise the extra work caused to Mrs B as a result.

Back to top

Agreed Action

64. The Council accepted the findings set out above. It agreed that within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint, it would:
1. provide a written apology to Mrs C accepting the findings of this investigation. Our guidance on remedies sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council would consider this guidance in making the apology recommended;
2. make a symbolic payment to Mrs C of £3,700. This would replace the Council’s suggested symbolic payment to Mrs C of £1676 and would not be in addition to it. The payment comprised three parts. First, a payment of £300 to Mrs C to recognise her distress. Second, a payment of £100 to Mrs C to recognise the unnecessary time and trouble caused to her by the Council’s poor complaint handling. Third, a payment of £3300 to recognise D’s missed provision. If Mrs C accepted the payment offered previously to her by the Council, the balance due to her would therefore be £2,024.
65. The Council agreed to provide us with evidence when it had complied with these actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

66. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Mrs C. The Council accepted that finding and agreed to take action that I considered would remedy that injustice. Consequently, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman