Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed finalising her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan. The Council was at fault. It caused a delay of six months. This likely meant her daughter missed out on some support that she needed and impacted on her wellbeing. Ms X herself also likely experienced inconvenience and distress and her right to appeal was frustrated. The Council has agreed to take action to address their injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed finalising her daughter’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This delay left her daughter, Y, without timely access to support, without a named post-16 placement and negatively affected her wellbeing.

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 Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policy

7. A child with special educational needs may have an education, health and care (EHC) plan. This document describes the arrangements which should be made to meet the child’s needs
8. 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 SEND 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

9. In November 2024, an annual review of Y’s EHC plan took place.
10. In February 2025, Ms X complained to the Council that she had not received a decision on whether it would maintain, amend, or cease the plan. She wanted to ensure a post-16 provision was named in time for September 2025.
11. The Council responded to her complaint, apologised for the delay and advised that the area casework manager was actively working on the plan.
12. In May 2025, Ms X asked to escalate her complaint to Stage 2 of the Council’s process, as she still had not received a finalised EHC plan. The Council responded, agreeing with the Stage 1 outcome, but failed to provide any further details about when the plan would be finalised or updates on its progress.
13. The Council finalised the plan in August 2025.The new plan had some additional provision, such as occupational therapy intervention.

My findings

14. The statutory timescale for finalising an EHC Plan following an annual review is clear and non-negotiable. The Council should have issued Y’s final plan by February 2025. The plan was finalised in August 2025, which was a delay of six months.
15. The Council explained the reasons for the delay and gave reassurances to Ms X that it would act without further delay. However, this does not alter the statutory duty or the injustice caused by the delay. The delay meant she could not use her right of appeal when she should have been able to.
16. It is likely that Y missed out on some of the support she needed (such as occupational therapy intervention) because of the delay in finalising her EHC Plan, and that this impacted on her wellbeing. Ms X also experienced inconvenience and frustration, including the time and effort spent pursuing a complaint with the Council and, subsequently, with us.

Back to top

Action

17. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to:

• Write to Ms X, apologising for the delay in issuing Y’s EHC plan. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council will consider this guidance when writing to Ms X.

• Make a symbolic payment of £400 to Ms X, on Y’s behalf, to recognise that its delay in finalising Y’s EHC plan likely caused her to lose some support over a six-month period as well as the impact on her wellbeing.

• Make a further symbolic payment of £250 to Ms X to recognise that the delay also likely caused her some inconvenience and distress.

18. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things.

Back to top

Decision

19. The Council was at fault. This caused injustice to Mrs X and Y, which the Council will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman