Summary: We upheld a complaint from Mrs D that the Council delayed in issuing her daughter with an Education, Health and Care Plan. We also found some avoidable delay with the Council’s complaint handling. These faults caused some injustice to Mrs D and her daughter causing distress and putting her to unnecessary time and trouble. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out action it agreed to take to remedy that injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs D complained on her own behalf, and that of her daughter Miss E, a young adult with special educational needs. In March 2025 Mrs D complained at delay by the Council in issuing Miss E with an updated Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Council twice declined to answer the substantive complaint, saying it had no consent from Miss E that she supported Mrs D making the complaint on her behalf.
2. Mrs D complained to this office therefore, that the Council:

• delayed in issuing Miss E with a final EHC Plan;
• refused to answer the substantive complaint about delay;
• delayed in providing its reply after it initially failed to reply to a request she made to escalate her complaint.

3. Mrs D said the delay in issuing Miss E’s EHC Plan caused uncertainty and distress. Mrs D explained the Council had failed previously in its management of her daughter’s case, resulting in a complaint we upheld, that found Miss E lost education as a result. Mrs D and Miss E feared a repeat of that experience. Mrs D also said the Council caused unnecessary frustration through its complaint handling and considered its approach deliberately obstructive.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I considered evidence provided by Mrs D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. I gave Mrs D and the Council chance to comment a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments they made in reply, before finalising the decision statement.

Back to top

What I found

Key legal and administrative considerations

EHC Plans and reviews when young people transfer between placements

10. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child or young person’s needs and the arrangements made to meet them. The EHC Plan has different sections, including Section I which names the education institution they attend (or type of education institution or setting). 
11. Where a young person plans to move between post-16 education settings for the start of the next academic year, the council should complete a review of their EHC Plan by 31 March. So, the council must review and where necessary amend, the young person’s EHC Plan at least five months before the transfer takes place.  

The Council complaints procedure

12. The Council sets out its complaint procedure in its Customer Feedback policy. This explains that it has a two stage complaint procedure. For complaints about special educational needs provision, it aims to respond to complaints at Stage One of its procedure within 20 working days. If the complainant remains dissatisfied then they have 20 working days to escalate their complaint to Stage Two of the procedure. The Council will then reply to their complaint at Stage Two, also within 20 working days.
13. The policy says someone can make a complaint for someone else, with that person’s permission. It says: “this could be with a signed declaration, or we may contact them to make sure they are happy for us to proceed with the complaint”.

The key facts

14. When Mrs D first complained to the Council in March 2025, Miss E was 18 years old. Miss E attended a specialist post-16 placement but expected to move to a mainstream further education college from September 2025. The Council had begun a review of Miss E’s EHC Plan but had not yet completed it. Mrs D expressed concern the Council had not yet consulted the college and so, would not issue Miss E’s new Plan before the end of March.
15. The Council replied at the start of April 2025. It noted the content of Mrs D’s complaint but said it could not reply as Miss E had not given Mrs D consent to make the complaint on her behalf. The Council said it needed such consent as Miss E was 18 years old.
16. A few days later Mrs D sent an email asking for her complaint to pass to Stage Two of the Council’s complaint procedure. She remained concerned at the delay in the Council completing Miss E’s review. The Council acknowledged receiving her email. A print-out provided by Miss E suggested the Council registered this as a separate complaint.
17. At the end of April 2025, the Council issued Miss E with a final EHC Plan, naming the further education college.
18. In mid-May 2025, Mrs D chased the Council to provide a reply to her Stage Two complaint. The same officer who had acknowledged her email said the Council had no trace of her writing to it in April. They told her she was out of time to pursue her complaint.
19. Mrs D told me at this point she contacted her MP. They contacted the Council on her behalf and in response, the Council agreed to look again.
20. In early June 2025 the Council sent its Stage Two reply to Mrs D’s complaint. This defended the approach taken at Stage One. It said without evidence that Miss E consented to Mrs D making a complaint on her behalf, it could not reply to it.
21. Mrs D then contacted this office. She provided consent that Miss E supported the complaint. Mrs D said she had liaised with the Council over the content of Miss E’s EHC Plan. Therefore, she questioned why the Council needed Miss E to also provide consent to the complaint.
22. We invited the Council to comment further. It said that it needed consent to deal with a complaint about an EHC Plan where the young person was over 18. This applied even if that person had consented for their parent to discuss their EHC plan with officers. The Council implied it should have made more checks with Miss E to ensure she wanted Mrs D to liaise with officers over the content of her Plan.

My findings

The complaint about delay in issuing Miss E’s EHC Plan

23. Miss E was due to transfer between two post-16 education institutions from the beginning of the academic year starting September 2025. I accepted Mrs D’s account that this became apparent from Autumn 2024 onward. In which case, Miss E should have received a final updated EHC Plan by the end of March 2025.
24. However, she did not receive that Plan until the end of the following month, April 2025. I found fault with this delay.
25. I noted the delay was not severe. I also noted that it did not prevent Miss E going on to attend the college of her choice. Even after the delay, Miss E had four months to prepare for that.
26. However, I considered the law on when young people should receive an updated Plan when moving between post-16 institutions was there for a reason. It assumes five months as a reasonable timescale for preparation for the change in setting and this timescale also gives an opportunity to appeal if the young person objects to parts of the Plan. I considered if the Council could not meet this timescale, this would inevitably cause some understandable distress as uncertainty. In this case, until the Council confirmed Miss E’s education setting, she would not know if the transfer would complete, or if she might need to appeal any decision taken. I also noted here Miss E’s previous poor experience when the Council failed to provide her with education for a time. I accepted this negative experience added to Mrs D and Miss E’s anxiety.
27. I considered the Council’s fault caused Miss E an injustice therefore. And this was significant enough, that the Council should take action to provide a remedy. The Council accepted this and I set out details of the remedy below.

The complaints about the Council’s complaint handling

28. I did not challenge the principle set out by the Council, that where it receives a complaint on behalf of an adult, it must check if the adult consents to the complaint. That will apply to anyone aged 18 or over.
29. I also found no fault in the Council’s position that where a young adult consents to their parent discussing their EHC Plan, that does not confer consent for the parent to also complain on their behalf. The Council must regard the two matters as separate.
30. So, I found no fault in the Council checking if Miss E consented to the complaint made on her behalf by Mrs D. I accepted it could not answer Mrs D’s complaint without Miss E’s consent.
31. I considered if the Council should have done more to help Miss E give her consent for the complaint. I found its policy did not make clear what happens when it receives a complaint made on behalf of someone else. The policy suggests the representative might provide that consent, but it also says the Council can make its own checks to establish this. However, it makes that discretionary saying it “may” check for the adult’s consent. It does not place an onus on its officers that they have to do so.
32. I also noted the relevant policy said nothing about how the Council triages complaints. By this I mean a procedure that may consider consent and other issues such as whether a complaint is late, if the complainant has an alternative means of redress such as a statutory right of appeal and so. A triage procedure can enable a council to hold complaints in abeyance for a time to obtain consent. I considered this approach preferable to it closing down a complaint as it did here, without any consideration of its merits.
33. I considered it would also have been best practice for the Council to have checked directly with Miss E if she consented to the complaint. For example, by sending her a consent form.
34. However, I reiterate the Council policy did not require it to take either of the steps suggested in paragraphs 32 and 33. And while we always want councils to follow best practice we will not find them at fault for not doing so. Instead, we expect them to meet a lower bar, which is to follow basic good administrative practice in their complaint handling. Our guidance on what this entails does not extend to requiring councils to actively seek consent where representatives fail to do so.
35. So, while I would welcome the Council reviewing its practice here I could not find it at fault for not delaying in answering the complaint to enable Miss E to provide consent. I therefore could not make any formal recommendation that it review its practice in this area. Although I still encouraged it to consider offering clearer signposting in the future, on how individuals can give consent for others to make a complaint on their behalf.
36. In addition, even if I had found fault here, I could not see that it alone caused any significant injustice to Mrs D or Miss E. This is because the Stage One reply to the complaint made clear the Council needed Miss E’s consent to provide a substantive reply. Mrs D chose not to provide that before escalating her complaint to Stage Two.
37. However, it was fault for the Council to then not reply to the Stage Two complaint within 20 working days. Mrs D has provided the email acknowledgement she received from the Council the day she asked the complaint to pass to Stage Two of the complaint procedure, so I find the Council knew about it. I can understand her frustration therefore, when just over a month later, the Council said it had no record of the same and she was out of time to pursue her complaint. The information Mrs D provided suggested that it failed to link the Stage Two complaint to the Stage One reply. But in any event, the Council was at fault for not replying in good time.
38. I found as a result, Mrs D had some unnecessary time and trouble before the Council reactivated her complaint. I considered that an injustice which the Council should also remedy, which it agreed to do.

Back to top

Agreed Action

39. To remedy the injustice identified to Miss E and Mrs D in paragraphs 27 and 38 respectively, the Council agreed that within 20 working days of a decision it would:
1. apologise to Mrs D and Miss E, accepting the findings of this investigation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council agreed to consider this guidance in making its apology;
2. make a symbolic payment of £100 to each, recognising the distress caused to Miss E by the delay in issuing her EHC Plan in April 2025 and the unnecessary time and trouble caused to Mrs D by mishandling her Stage Two complaint.
40. The Council agreed also to provide us with evidence when it had complied with the actions set out in paragraph 39.

Back to top

Decision

41. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Mrs D and Miss E. The Council agreed action that I considered would remedy that injustice. So, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman