Summary: Ms F complained about the Council’s handling of the annual review process for her son’s (X) Education, Health, and Care plan and actions around her personal budget requests. The Council agreed it had failed to adhere to statutory timescales and communicated poorly. This was fault. It has since set out the provision X should have received and backdated his personal budget in a direct payment to Ms F. We found this addressed the injustice X experienced. The Council will also apologise and make payment to Ms F to acknowledge the unnecessary distress and uncertainty she experienced.

The complaint

1. Ms F complained about the Council’s handling of her son’s (X) education. She said:
• it failed to adhere to the statutory timescales following an annual review in December 2024, and his amended Education, Health, and Care (EHC) plan has not been finalised;
• provision she asked for in the annual review has not been put in place. She said the personal budget in place for her son’s EHC plan was not enough as it did not reflect the true cost of his education and transport; and
• and it failed to communicate properly with her. It also did not address her request for a financial remedy and how it would improve in its communication and complaints responses.
2. Ms F said, as a result, she experienced distress and uncertainty, and X had a loss of educational provision.

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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. I have investigated Ms F’s complaint about the Council’s handling of the annual review process for X’s EHC plan since late 2024 and how it considered her personal budget requests. Including how it communicated with her and responded to her complaint.
9. I have not investigated any elements of the request for provision for X as part of the annual review or the Council’s decisions following the annual review regarding his EHC plan. This is because disagreements about provision carries appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Ms F and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Ms F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
12. 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 found

Relevant law and guidance

Education, Health, and Care plans

13. 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. 
14. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include:
• Section B: Special educational needs.
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person.
• Section I: The name and/or type of educational placement
• Section J: Details of any personal budget required to fund the provision in the EHC Plan.
15. 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. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to 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)
16. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal.
17. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s:
• description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified in their EHC Plan;
• amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan; and
• decision not to amend an EHC Plan following a review or reassessment.

Personal Budgets

18. A Personal Budget is the amount of money the council has identified it needs to pay to secure the provision in a child or young person’s EHC Plan. One way that councils can deliver a Personal Budget is through direct payments. These are cash payments made to the child’s parent or the young person so they can commission the provision in the EHC Plan themselves.
19. A child’s parent or the young person has the right to request a Personal Budget when the council has completed an EHC needs assessment and confirmed it will prepare an EHC Plan. They may also request a Personal Budget during a statutory review of an existing EHC Plan.
20. The final allocation of a Personal Budget must be sufficient to secure the agreed provision specified in the EHC Plan and must be set out as part of that provision.
21. If the council refuses a request for a direct payment, it must set out the reasons in writing and inform the child’s parent or the young person of their right to request a formal review of the decision.
22. The council’s (and health commissioning body’s where relevant) duty to secure or arrange provision specified in EHC Plans is only discharged through a direct payment when the provision has been acquired for, or on behalf of, the child’s parent or the young person.

What happened

23. Ms F son (X) has health conditions which impacts his ability to receive an education. He has an EHC plan which sets out his special educational needs and the support he should receive. No school placement is listed in his plan, as he is unable to attend school. He receives Education Other Than at School (EOTAS).
24. An annual review of X’s EHC plan took place in December 2024. Ms F told the Council:
• X’s plan should be amended as the it sets out largely relates to provision as if X was in a school placement. Some of the provision was therefore irrelevant;
• the personal budget to deliver X’s EOTAS provision was not enough due to the costs and transport needed; and
• X needed more or different provision.
25. It was agreed Ms F should provide details about the provision and costs she had arranged, or intended to arrange for X. Ms F shared this with the Council soon after.
26. By Spring 2025 the Council had not completed X’s annual review. Ms F complained to the Council about its failure to adhere to the statutory timescales for the process. She also said she was unable to ensure he received the education and opportunities he was entitled to as her personal budget request had not been considered and responded to.
27. In response the Council acknowledged it had failed to adhere to the statutory timescales for the annual review process, and apologised. It explained it had reviewed the proposed amendments but decided it would maintain X’s EHC plan without amendments. It agreed EOTAS should continue the following academic year and it would be in touch to discuss the details. A new annual review would be held in Autumn 2025.
28. Shortly after the Council shared its decision to maintain X’s EHC plan and Ms F’s appeal rights. It also shared X’s EOTAS package with Ms F. It explained the delay had been due to the allocated officer being off from work. The package set out some provision would be paid directly by the Council, and some would be through a managed direct payment to Ms F. The provision included tutoring, community sessions, educational days out, and educational resources. The funding of one provision was still to be confirmed.
29. Ms F escalated her complaint with the Council. She said she:
• was not satisfied with its response, the lack of remedy for X and her, and wanted to know how it intended to improve services;
• the personal budget for X should be increased and disagreed some budgeted provision had been removed despite professionals saying this was beneficial to X; and
• disagreed with its decision for X’s EHC plan to be maintained as it largely related to school provision which he was not accessing and she believed his needs had changed.
30. In its final response the Council found it had properly considered her complaint. It acknowledged there had been a delay in the annual review process, but its view was the package available to X was appropriate. This could again be considered in the next annual review. It apologised for the delays and poor communication Ms F experienced. It explained it had recently completed a restructure which has led to significant changes to its education service.
31. In June 2025 Ms F asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. She also said she had no access to the Council’s system for the complaints correspondence.
32. In July 2025 the Council and Ms F agreed an EOTAS package for X. This set out the provision X should receive through a managed direct payment to Ms F. It included a back payment for the 2023/24 and the 2024/25 academic years for trips and education Ms F had provided.

Analysis and findings

The annual review process for X

33. The Council has accepted it failed to adhere to the statutory timescales for the annual review process for X. It should have issued its decision to amend or maintain his EHC plan in early January 2025. However, it was first five-month later it completed the process. This was fault.
34. I understand Ms F disagrees with the Council’s decision to maintain X’s EHC plan. This is because she believes the plan should have been amended and additional provision included. As such decisions carries appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal, I cannot consider this. I also understand Ms F has not exercised her rights of appeal.
35. However, I found Ms F experienced unnecessary distress and uncertainty during the five-month period as a result of the Council’s delay. I am not satisfied the Council’s apology was enough to remedy the impact this had.

X personal budget and the Council’s communication

36. Ms F told the Council she was unable to provide all the agreed EOTAS provision for X in late 2024 due to the cost and transport. The Council said it would consider this when she had provided further information about the cost and provision.
37. It took the Council until May 2025 to confirm the provision X should receive through his personal budget, and a further two months to set out the personal budget agreement which increased and backdated provision in line with Ms F’s requests. It also acknowledged its communication with her had been poor.
38. I understand the Council’s allocated officer was off work for a period. However, appropriate cover should have been in place to ensure her request were considered, responded to, and actioned without delay. I have seen no good reason why the personal budget in July 2025 could not have been agreed in January 2025 when the Council should have issued its decision to maintain X’s EHC plan. This was therefore fault.
39. I am satisfied this caused Ms F some further unnecessary distress and uncertainty as it impacted her ability to support X with his education.
40. I also found X experienced a loss of some education or opportunities. However, the Council has since backdated X’s EOTAS package to the 2023/24 and 2024/25 academic years, and applied the relevant funding as a direct payment to Ms F. This was an appropriate way to remedy the impact the Council’s delays and faults had on X.

Complaints handling

41. I have not found fault with the Council’s complaints handling. This is because it responded to her complaint in line with the timescales of its complaints policy. While this did not resolve her concerns or provide the remedy she wanted, it also informed her of her right to bring her complaint to our attention.
42. In addition, I understand she did not have access to the Council’s complaint’s portal. However, it shared the relevant complaint communication shortly after she brought this to its attention.

Service improvements

43. I have not made any service improvement to address the faults identified. This is because:
• the Council has since undergone a restructuring and had an action plan in place which includes addressing issues and delays with handling of the annual review process and poor communication; and
• we have made service improvements on other investigations regarding delays in the Council’s handling of personal budget requests. This was for the same period of Ms F’s complaint, and we were satisfied with how it complied with our recommendations.

Back to top

Action

44. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Ms F and X, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Ms F to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused her and X;

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.

2. pay Ms F a symbolic payment of £300 to acknowledge the unnecessary distress and uncertainty she experienced as a result of its delays and poor communication between December 2024 to July 2025.
2. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. I found fault causing injustice. The Council will apologise and make payment to Ms F to acknowledge the impact its delays and poor communication had on her.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman