Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed completing Y’s EHC Plan and did not communicate effectively. The Council was at fault for significant delay, poor communication, and failing to take sufficient action when Y was not accessing education. This caused Miss X distress and uncertainty, and Y missed around two months of education. The Council agreed recommended actions to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed completing her child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review and a further emergency review. She also complained the Council did not communicate effectively during this process.
2. Miss X said the delay meant Y remained in a school setting that could not meet their needs. She said Y experienced increasing anxiety, was unable to attend lessons and missed education. Miss X said this caused her distress and frustration and had a negative impact on Y’s wellbeing. She considered the £100 offered by the Council did not reflect the impact on her or Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

Relevant guidance and legislation

EHC Plan 

8. 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. 

Reviewing EHC Plans

9. 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) 
10. 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.

Alternative provision

11. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that councils must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child. The alternative educational provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.
12. If a council discovers a child is absent from school for an extended period, it should consider the reasons for this, and take account of evidence from relevant parties (such as the child’s school, parents, and medical professionals). It must then decide whether it has a duty to make alternative educational provision.
13. Councils should consider any attempts the school is making to support the child. This might involve sending work home for the child to complete, arranging disability related support, placing the child on a reduced timetable, or providing online education as a short-term measure. If there is a clear, effective, and time-bound plan for reintegration then there may be no immediate role for the council in providing alternative education.

What happened

14. Y had an EHC Plan and attended a mainstream secondary school.
15. The Council held an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan in early July 2024. It received the review paperwork on 23 July 2024. It issued draft amended Plans in December 2024 and February 2025. The Council consulted with several schools during this period about whether they could meet Y’s needs. Those schools responded in April 2025 stating they could not offer a placement.
16. The Council arranged a panel in April 2025 to consider the outcome of consultations, but it deferred this. It continued to review and amend the Plan and consult with schools.
17. Miss X contacted the Council in April 2025 to complain about delay and lack of communication. The Council accepted at complaint stage that it delayed completing the EHC Plan and did not communicate effectively. It apologised and offered £100 to recognise the distress caused.
18. Y remained on roll at the school and attended regularly during this period. The school said it provided support and access to work. But it said Y did not attend most lessons and instead remained in a student support base. It said staff offered work and encouraged Y to engage, but Y did not consistently do so and often became distressed when prompted.
19. Miss X told the Council in June 2025 that Y had experienced a panic attack and could not attend school for a period. The Council continued to work with Miss X to amend the Plan and consult with schools.
20. The Council finalised Y’s EHC Plan on 1 October 2025 naming the school.

Analysis and findings

21. The Council accepted it delayed completing Y’s EHC Plan. The evidence shows it did not finalise the Plan until around 12 months after the statutory timeframe. The Council remained responsible for completing the process within the required timeframe. The reasons it gave, including service pressures and the need for consultation, did not remove that duty. This was fault.
22. The Council also accepted it did not communicate effectively with Miss X. The records show delays in responding to her requests for updates and a lack of consistent communication about the progress of the review and consultations. This was fault.
23. The evidence shows Y remained on roll and attended school throughout the period from September 2024 until the EHC Plan was finalised in October 2025. The school provided support and made work available. However, from around June 2025, Y did not access education in a meaningful way. She did not attend most lessons and did not consistently engage with work. The school said she remained in the student support base and often chose to complete self-selected activities. It also said attempts to encourage engagement led to distress.
24. The Council knew, or should have known, Y was not accessing education at this stage. Although provision was available, the Council remained responsible for ensuring Y received suitable education. There is insufficient evidence it took adequate or timely steps to ensure Y received suitable education when it became clear she was not engaging.
25. The Council said it considered alternative provision but decided it was not appropriate. However, there is limited evidence it explored alternative or adjusted provision proactively or at an early stage. The Council relied on provision being available within the school despite knowing Y was not accessing it.
26. The Council was at fault for failing to take sufficient action to ensure Y received suitable education once it knew Y was not accessing learning. Y missed education for a period of around two months from June to October 2025, excluding the summer holiday.

Injustice

27. The Council’s faults caused injustice to Miss X and Y.
28. Miss X experienced avoidable distress, frustration and prolonged uncertainty due to the significant delay in completing the EHC Plan and poor communication.
29. Y experienced a loss of educational opportunity for around two months when they did not access education in a meaningful way and the Council failed to take sufficient action to address this. This occurred at a time when Y’s needs were known to be significant.
30. The Council offered Miss X £100 to recognise the distress caused by delay. This did not take account of the loss of educational opportunity identified above and is not proportionate to the injustice caused.
31. The Council already identified service improvements through its complaint process, including increased staffing and training. I do not make further service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Action

32. Within one month of our final decision, the Council agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay £300 to Miss X for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s actions.
• Pay £450 to Miss X to recognise Y’s loss of educational opportunity.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman