Summary: The Council was at fault as it did not issue Mrs X’s child Y’s amended Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales after their annual review. It was also at fault for its poor communication. It will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X to recognise the avoidable frustration caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained on behalf of her child, Y who is a young adult with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She complained the Council did not complete Y’s annual review process of 2024 within statutory timescales. She also complained that the Council’s communication was poor.
2. Mrs X said as a result they were caused frustration, worry and confusion.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We may investigate complaints made on behalf of someone else if they have given their consent. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26A(1), as amended)
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. 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)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Mrs X and considered evidence she provided.
8. I considered evidence provided by the Council in response to our initial enquiries as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on the draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Education, Health and Care Plans

10. A young person with special educational needs (SEN) may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This sets out the young person’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
11. The EHC Plan is set out in sections including section F: the special educational provision needed by the young person. We cannot direct changes to the sections about the young person’s needs, special educational provision, or the name of the educational placement. Only the SEND Tribunal or the council can do this.

Reviewing Education, Health and Care Plans

12. Councils 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 discontinue the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEND Code paragraph 9.176) 

Amending Education, health and Care Plans

13. 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

14. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
15. Y is a young adult with special educational needs (SEN) who lives at home with Mrs X.
16. In June 2024 Y’s annual review meeting was held at their college.
17. In late March 2025 the Council issued its decision to amend Y’s EHC Plan. It sent a copy of Y’s EHC Plan to Y and Mrs X with the proposed changes to the Plan.
18. In early May 2025:

• the Council issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan.
• Mrs X complained to the Council about the delay in issuing Y’s final EHC Plan. She also complained that the Council had communicated poorly; it had not provided a reason for this delay nor any clarification that this final EHC Plan was following Y’s annual review meeting of June 2024 and was not for their current academic year. Mrs X also said that Y’s annual review of 2025 was due soon and the Council had not communicated whether this would go ahead.

19. Mrs X received an undated stage one complaint response from the Council in early June 2025. Mrs X complained to us the same day. In the stage one complaint response, the Council:

• apologised for its delayed complaint response and for its poor communication. It said it had and would continue to take action through further training to improve its communication with families.
• accepted that there was a considerable delay in processing Y’s annual review due to the Council being understaffed in 2024.
• explained Y’s new caseworker who joined in late 2024 had picked up their case to process the annual review. It also said Y’s caseworker had spoken to Mrs X to apologise for their poor communication and had set out actions to address any concerns moving forward. They had also arranged to attend Y’s annual review meeting later in the month.

20. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint. She said the Council had not replied within the timescales published in its complaints policy. She also said that the Council’s reason for the delay (understaffing) was an inadequate reason as Y’s needs depended on their EHC Plan being up to date and correct. Y’s caseworker, upon joining should have contacted her and others impacted by the delays; their apology in June 2025 was not sufficient as there had been no contact from the Council prior to this nor any clarification that the new EHC Plan was following last year’s annual review.
21. The Council responded to Mrs X a few days later. It refused to investigate her complaint at stage two of its corporate complaints process. It said this was because investigating the matter further would not achieve a different outcome.
22. In late June 2025 Y’s annual review meeting was held. The Council issued a final amended EHC Plan in August 2025.
23. Mrs X did not appeal Y’s final amended EHC Plans of May and August 2025 to the Tribunal.

Findings

24. We expect councils to follow statutory timescales set out in the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and the SEND Code of Practice 2015. We are likely to find fault where there are significant breaches of those timescales.
25. Y’s annual review meeting was held in June 2024. In line with the SEND Code, the Council should have issued its decision to amend Y’s EHC Plan by July 2024, however it did not do so until late March 2025 (which was a delay of eight months). The Council should have issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan within eight weeks of its decision to amend and by May 2025 which it did. The Council’s delay in completing Y’s annual review process within statutory timescales was fault.
26. Mrs X did not appeal Y’s EHC Plans of May 2025 (and August 2025). Y’s amended EHC Plan of May 2025 did not show an increase in the special educational provision within section F of Y’s EHC Plan in comparison to their previous EHC Plan of September 2023. The special educational provision in Y’s next EHC Plan of August 2025 also remained similar. Therefore, the Council’s delay in completing Y's annual review of 2024 and issuing their final EHC Plan did not cause them to miss out on any additional provision they may have received sooner if not for the Council’s delay. However, the delay did cause Mrs X and Y avoidable frustration.
27. The Council has already accepted its communication with Mrs X was poor for which it apologised. The Council should have communicated with Mrs X clearly and in a timely manner. There is no evidence to show it did which was fault.
28. We recently made service improvement recommendations to the Council on similar matters in other investigations, and we are monitoring them through our case work. Therefore, I have not considered it necessary to repeat these or make further service improvement recommendations on Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within one month of this decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mrs X and Y for the avoidable frustration caused by its faults. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology.
2. Pay Mrs X £300 for the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay in completing Y’s annual review process and issuing their amended Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales.
30. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

31. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman