Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her child Y’s final amended Education, Health and Care Plan. She also said the Council failed to secure all the provision in Section F. We find the Council at fault for significant delay and poor complaint handling. This caused loss of educational provision for Y and caused Miss X distress and uncertainty. The Council will apologise, makes symbolic payments for lost provision and distress, provide an update on its current action plan, and review its oversight of complaint response times.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council delayed in issuing her child Y’s final amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following the review, and after issuing a draft plan. She also complains about delay in the Council response to her complaints.
2. Miss X also says the provision specified in Section F of the EHC Plan has not been delivered in full.
3. Miss X says this has caused significant frustration and distress to her and her family and has affected Y’s support.

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. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the relevant available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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.
7. 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)
8. 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 have and have not investigated

9. We have previously investigated delays during the earlier review and draft stages and made findings in relation to the period between November 2023 and December 2024, when the Council issued the draft EHC Plan. This decision does not revisit those matters. Our investigation focuses on events between January 2025 and January 2026, when the Council issued the final EHC Plan. We refer to the earlier investigation only briefly as background context to the current complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Miss 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

Legislation and guidance

EHC Plan 

12. 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. 

Content of an EHC Plan

13. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section B: Special educational needs.  
• Section C: Health needs related to the child or young person’s SEN.
• Section D: Social care needs related to the child or young person’s SEN
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 

Maintaining the EHC Plan

14. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
15. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

Reviewing EHC Plans

16. 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. Following the review meeting the council must issue a decision to either 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) 
17. 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.
18. 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.

Background information

19. In December 2023, Y’s education provider requested an early review of Y’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan review because it considered the existing provision was no longer meeting Y’s needs.
20. The Council held the review meeting in March 2024 and issued a draft amended EHC Plan in December 2024. We have previously investigated and made findings about delays during this earlier period.

What happened

21. In January 2025, Miss X submitted comments on the draft amended EHC Plan.
22. By March, the Council had not issued a final amended EHC Plan or responded to Miss X’s comments. Miss X contacted the Council for an update.
23. In April, the Council apologised for the delay. It said this was due to high volumes of work within the team and the need to prioritise pupils at key education phases. It said it would complete the review as soon as possible.
24. Miss X then complained to the Council. She said the delay in finalising the amended EHC Plan was unacceptable and raised concerns about the lack of additional funding to meet Y’s needs.
25. In June, Miss X bought her complaint to us. As the Council had not completed its complaint procedure, we referred the complaint back to the Council first.
26. Later in June, the Council issued a further amended draft EHC Plan. Miss X requested additional time to comment on the draft and again asked the Council to clarify the funding arrangements for Y’s provision.
27. Between June and August, Miss X repeatedly contacted the Council for updates about the amended EHC Plan and funding concerns.
28. In July, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It apologised for the lack of progress since she submitted her comments and said it was prioritising the matter. Miss X remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint.
29. In December, a new Council caseworker contacted Miss X and asked her to resend her earlier comments so the Council could finalise the amended EHC Plan. The Council also said it had contacted the school for further information about funding concerns.
30. In January 2026, the Council issued its final complaint response. It apologised for delays in progressing the complaint and for failing to respond to Miss X’s enquiries about funding. It also told Miss X about her right to complain to us.
31. The Council then issued the final EHC Plan for Y.

Council response to enquiries

32. In response to our enquiries, the Council said the delay in issuing the final amended EHC Plan was due to ongoing correspondence with Miss X about funding and provision concerns. It also said there was management oversight of the proposed changes which caused a delay. The Council said these factors meant the case was not progressed within usual timescales.
33. The Council also said the delay in responding to Miss X’s complaint was due to high volumes of SEND complaints and staffing capacity pressures. It also said it needed to gather information from multiple officers while attempting to progress the substantive issues.
34. In relation to delivery of provision, the Council did not provide evidence of direct communication with the education provider confirming arrangements. However, it said Y remained in full-time education and provision was delivered in line with the existing EHC Plan while amendments were progressed. It acknowledged that its chronology shows ongoing concerns from Miss X about funding clarity and timeliness, which remained unresolved for a period.

My findings

EHC Plan delay

35. Following a review, where a council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, it must issue the final amended EHC Plan within eight weeks of issuing the proposed amendments. Therefore, the Council should have issued the final amended EHC Plan by early February 2025.
36. The Council did not issue the final amended EHC Plan until January 2026. This was a delay of around 11 months beyond the statutory timescale. This was fault.
37. The Council said the delay was due to ongoing discussions regarding funding and provision, staffing pressures and high SEND caseloads. While I recognise these factors may explain why the delay occurred, they do not remove the Council’s statutory duty to complete the amendment process within the required timescales.
38. I also note the December 2024 draft amended EHC Plan and January 2026 final amended EHC Plan were materially similar. This indicates there were not substantial unresolved amendments requiring such a prolonged delay before the Plan could be finalised.
39. I also considered the impact of the delay on provision available to Y. The Council said Y continued to receive provision in line with his existing EHC Plan while amendments were ongoing. However, the amended EHC Plan contained more extensive provision than the previous 2023 plan.
40. On the balance of probabilities, I consider the Council’s delay in finalising the amended EHC Plan delayed Y’s access to the provision identified as necessary through the review process. While Y remained in full-time education throughout this period, the evidence suggests he did not benefit from the full level of enhanced support identified in the amended EHC Plan for a prolonged period. Also, the significant delay meant the final amended EHC Plan was based on information that was already outdated by the time it was issued.
41. The delay also caused Miss X avoidable frustration, uncertainty and distress as she sought clarity about Y’s educational provision and funding arrangements. It further delayed her ability to consider and, if necessary, appeal the contents of the amended EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal. Taken together, these represent a significant injustice.
42. In considering remedies for lost educational provision, we generally recommend a payment of between £900 and £2,400 per school term. Y remained in full-time education throughout the delay. However, the Council delayed issuing the final amended EHC Plan by around 11 months, which delayed Y’s access to the enhanced provision identified through the review process. Therefore, I applied a figure at the mid-range of the tariff to reflect this.
43. I have recommended two separate payments. Our guidance on remedies states we should normally recommend a single financial payment and avoid duplication for the same injustice, unless there are exceptional circumstances. I consider this an exceptional case, as Miss X experienced separate injustice from loss of provision and from poor complaint handling, which caused additional distress beyond that arising from the service failure.

Complaint handling

44. The Council’s complaints policy states it will respond to complaints within 15 working days at stage one. Miss X first complained in April 2025. However, the Council did not provide a response within its published timescales and the complaint remained unresolved for several months.
45. As a result, Miss X escalated her complaint to us in June before the Council had completed its internal complaints process. The Council issued its stage one complaint response in July which was outside its published timescale. This is fault. The Council also did not issue its stage two complaint response until January 2026, which was also significantly outside expected timescales.
46. The Council told Miss X it was prioritising her complaint and case, but there is limited evidence of meaningful progress following this assurance. This resulted in Miss X continuing to pursue updates over an extended period, causing avoidable time, frustration and inconvenience.

Back to top

Action

47. To remedy the injustice identified above, within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Miss X, in line with our guidance Making an effective apology
• Pay Miss X £3,600 to recognise the loss of provision Y experienced due to the delay in amending the final EHC Plan.
• Pay Miss X £300 to recognise the avoidable distress and frustration caused by the delay in amending the EHC Plan and to recognise the poor complaint handling which contributed to ongoing frustration.
48. Within three months from the date of our final decision, the Council will:
• Review whether current oversight arrangements within its SEND service are sufficient to ensure complainants receive timely responses and accurate updates about the progression of EHC Plans.
• Provide us with an update on the progress of its current SEND action plan, including the actions due to be completed by June 2026 and the steps it has taken to improve timeliness in progressing EHC Plans and communication with families.
49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman