Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s handling of her son’s college placement, the processes around his Education, Health and Care Plan, and the provision of support. We found the Council at fault, causing significant uncertainty, frustration and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains, on behalf of her adult son (D), about the Council’s failures with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, including how it handled annual reviews, updates and placement consultations. She says this meant her son did not have support with a new placement leading to missed education and provision. She says this caused significant distress, frustration and uncertainty.

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. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. Miss X referred to general issues around her son’s EHC Plan and education since 2022. I am not investigating events before 2024 as these are late (see Paragraph 3). I consider Miss X could have complained to us sooner about these matters.
7. In any event, the main substance of Miss X’s formal complaint related to her son’s September 2024 placement. Miss X complained to us in June 2025. In line with Paragraph 3, we would normally investigate events from 12 months prior to coming to us (from June 2024). I decided to exercise discretion to investigate from March 2024, as I can see the Council contacted Miss X about this placement at that point. I investigated up to April 2025 (when Miss X received the Council’s final response to her formal complaint). I have referred to events before, and after, the above for relevant background context.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views.
9. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

Education, Health and Care (EHC) plans

11. A young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out their 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. 

Reviewing EHC Plans

12. 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 annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must take place. The process is only complete when the council issues a decision about the review. Within four weeks of a review meeting, the council must notify the child’s parent of its decision to maintain, amend or discontinue the EHC Plan.

Maintaining the EHC Plan

13. The council has a duty to make sure the 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).
14. 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. 

Background

15. Miss X’s adult son (D) has special educational needs (SEN).
16. In late 2023, D’s final EHC Plan named College 1. This said D hoped to complete his current course in Subject A alongside GCSE maths. At the end of 2023, College 1 held an annual review. The Council did not issue a formal decision about D’s EHC Plan.

What happened – summary of key relevant events in the period considered

17. In late March 2024, the Council emailed Miss X. It was updating its records about placements for the next academic year and asked if D would attend a college in September 2024. Miss X replied that D was interested in a new course for this date. She said D’s EHC Plan did not reflect his current needs, which would impact on placements deciding if they could meet them. The Council asked College 1 to invite it to D’s next annual review. Four months later, Miss X emailed the Council for an update.
18. In late August 2024, College 2 emailed the Council. D enrolled earlier that day and it asked about his EHC Plan. The Council sent D’s active EHC Plan and asked College 2 if it could meet his needs.
19. In late January 2025, College 2 contacted the Council advising of D’s very low attendance. He last attended in autumn 2024. It scheduled an emergency annual review for the next month and invited the Council.
20. The next day, the Council emailed Miss X after a call. It was aware D struggled at College 2 and the annual review would discuss next steps. It gave information about internships as D had expressed interest in this.
21. In mid-February 2025, Miss X formally complained to the Council. She said the Council failed to do consultations to identify a suitable placement for D to attend in September 2024. D enrolled himself at College 2 at short notice in Subject B. D did not receive support to settle in despite his difficulties with transitions. He initially managed to attend but when he asked for 1:1 support, College 2 transferred him to a different class with additional days. D could not cope with the change due to his SEN and did not return. She said it did not act in line with its duty to ensure the placement was suitable and support was in place for him.
22. The next day, College 2 held an annual review. It said D had not utilised the support it offered as he had not attended; he had not achieved his outcomes. College 2 said it transferred D to a full-time programme to meet funding conditions around GCSE maths, which extended his timetable to four days a week. Miss X said it would not be beneficial for D to go back to his Subject 2 course and wanted a plan of action for him.
23. In early March 2025, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at Stage 1. It noted College 2 shared it could not implement support due to D’s non-attendance and he declined a 1:1. It would review the annual review documents and decide what to do with D’s EHC Plan. It was actively exploring alternative courses D could do. It did not uphold her complaint. Miss X escalated her complaint.
24. In late March 2025, the Council sent a decision letter to Miss X. After considering the recent annual review, it considered D had made good progress and achieved his outcomes. It proposed to cease D’s EHC Plan. It decided he did not require further special educational provision to be made for him.
25. In late March 2025, Miss X emailed the Council to challenge this decision. She said D had not received the required support to engage with his education properly. Without an EHC Plan, he would not be able to transition into employment. She said she was now aware the Council had removed sections from D’s EHC Plan without consulting her. She asked it to reinstate these.
26. In early April 2025, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at Stage 2. It maintained its findings that support was available for D at College 2, but he did not use it. It said it was not aware D wanted to transfer from College 1 to a different setting before September 2024. It concluded it did not follow required processes regarding consultations or the administration of the annual review. It apologised and offered £200 to recognise the uncertainty caused.

Events after the Council’s final complaint response

27. A few days later, the Council sent Miss X a formal decision letter to cease D’s EHC Plan, outlining her appeal rights. She emailed the Council objecting to this.
28. In late April 2025, the Council withdrew the decision. It said it did not follow correct process with the February 2025 review, so it would carry a further annual review and make another decision. At the end of May 2025, the Council held the annual review. In early June 2025, Miss X complained to us.

Analysis

29. It is not our role to consider the internal actions of colleges as they are not in our remit to investigate. We investigate the administrative actions of the Council.

D’s September 2024 placement and provision

30. The Council said it was not aware D wanted to transfer to a different setting for September 2024. But it emailed Miss X about this in March 2024, and she replied about D's interest in a new course. I cannot see the Council contacted Miss X to discuss D’s wishes in detail and whether it would be at a different placement. There was a large gap in communication. As a result, it did not carry out any consultations to decide a suitable placement. This is fault. This led D to apply to College 2 and the Council missed opportunities to have oversight around this.
31. I also cannot see it acted on Miss X’s concerns about D’s EHC Plan about his current needs in March 2024. Apart from asking College 1 to invite it to the next annual review, it did not follow up on this and let it drift. This is fault, causing uncertainty and frustration to Miss X and D.
32. It was not until late August 2024 when the Council was aware of D’s enrolment at College 2. It sent D’s EHC Plan asking if it could meet need, however it failed to follow up when College 2 did not respond. By this point, the Council knew D was at a different placement and it should have enquired about provision. Again, it let this drift. This is fault.
33. While the Council did not check in at this point; however, I note, from evidence seen, Miss X also did not raise issues direct to the Council at the time. As she was of the view that no support was in place for D when he started, had she contacted the Council at the time, it may have been able to investigate this sooner. From what I’ve seen, Miss X did not do this until her formal complaint in February 2025, several months after D stopped attending.
34. It was College 2 who contacted the Council about D’s attendance in January 2025. College 2 promptly arranged an annual review to discuss the matters, which the Council attended. Mrs X said College 2 did not provide support. College 2 outlined the provision it had offered and noted D had declined or not engaged at points. The Council was satisfied the provision was in place and accessible for D.
35. There is a conflict of accounts here. But on balance, without further supporting evidence from either side, I cannot make a safe finding around whether provision was in place or not at the time, or whether the Council was at fault here.
36. While Miss X says D was already struggling due to no support, he stopped attending after College 2’s transfer to a different course. I recognise this likely disrupted and overwhelmed D to the point he felt he could no longer attend. But this was not a Council action. It was an operational decision by College 2, which I cannot consider.
37. Regardless of this, overall, the Council’s faults around its failure to consult or discuss D’s placement, provision and his needs before September 2024 led to a significant level of uncertainty around the events that followed, and if it was avoidable. It also did not decisively act on Miss X’s concerns in early 2024 that D’s EHC Plan did not reflect his current needs so provision may not have been correct to support him. This is injustice to Miss X and D with frustration and uncertainty about what may have happened, had it not been for these faults, and if it may have made a difference to D’s later engagement and education.

D’s EHC Plan

38. Miss X said the Council removed Sections B and F from D’s EHC Plan. I have seen a copy of D’s active EHC Plan in the relevant period and these sections are included. I cannot add further to this. We cannot make findings about the content of EHC Plans and Miss X later had appeal rights after May 2025 about this. Miss X also disagreed with the Council wanting to cease D’s EHC Plan; however, the Council shortly withdrew this decision.
39. The Council accepted fault with not following timings or processes around annual reviews. It offered a remedy for this. While positive, I recommended to increase this to recognise the overall injustice.

Back to top

Agreed Action

40. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council agreed to carry out the following actions within six weeks of the final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X and D in writing for the injustice caused by the faults identified (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology); and pay a symbolic payment of £350 total to recognise the injustice caused.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
42. The Council said it recognised it did not meet statutory timeframes with annual reviews. It had since taken action to put measures in place to improve compliance with these going forward. These are positive actions and I do not consider it necessary to recommend further service improvements for now.

Back to top

Decision

43. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman