Summary: Mrs X complains the Council did not deal properly with her son Y’s special educational needs, causing avoidable distress, loss of provision and financial loss. The Council did not complete an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan annual review properly and Y’s EHC Plan was delayed. Y lost special educational provision. The Council should apologise, make a symbolic payment to Mrs X and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains the Council failed to deal with her son Y’s education properly because it did not review his Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan within statutory timescales.
2. Mrs X says she suffered avoidable distress, delay to the EHC Plan process and financial loss as she was unable to benefit from a Council Tax discount.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available, relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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(i), 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 considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs 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

Law, guidance and policies

9. 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.
10. 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) 
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. If the child’s parents or the young person disagrees with the decision to cease the EHC Plan, the council must continue to maintain the EHC Plan until the time has passed for bringing an appeal, or when an appeal has been registered, until it is concluded.
14. For young people moving between post-16 institutions, the council should normally complete the review process by 31 March where a young person is expected to transfer to a new institution in the new academic year. However, transfers between post-16 institutions may take place at different times of the year and the EHC Plan review process should take account of this. In all cases, where a young person is planning to transfer between one post-16 institution and another within the following 12 months, the council must review and amend, where necessary, the young person’s EHC Plan. This must be at least five months before the transfer takes place.
15. The whole process of EHC needs assessment and EHC plan development, from the point when an assessment is requested (or a child or young person is brought to the local authority’s attention) until the final EHC plan is issued, must take no more than 20 weeks. (SEN Code paragraph 9.40)

What happened?

16. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
17. Y attended College A in 2023. He had an EHC Plan. He left College A in July.
18. Y began attending College B in September 2023, until December 2023.
19. The Council wrote to Y in December 2023 asking if he wished to continue in education.
20. Y returned to college A for work experience and to complete his course. He was then looking for a level 2 further education course from February 2024.
21. The Council wrote to Y in March 2024, informing him that it intended to cease to maintain his EHC Plan.
22. Y began attending Location C in September 2024.
23. Mrs X contacted the Council in October 2024 asking for Y’s EHC Plan to be reassessed.
24. Mrs X complained to the Council in January 2025.
25. The Council actioned the reassessment in January 2025.
26. The Council partly upheld Mrs X’s complaint in June 2025.
27. The Council issues Y’s updated final EHC Plan in August 2025 including a personal budget for continued formal education at Location C.
28. Y attended Location C on a voluntary basis until September 2025. The Council agreed funding for a course at location C from September 2025.

Analysis

29. The Council’s complaint responses:
• upheld part of the complaint that Y’s annual review in 2023 suggested that an amendment may be required and this was not actioned.
• partially upheld the complaint about being aware Y was continuing in education.
• partially upheld the complaint about communication and delays to updating Y’s EHC Plan
• said it had not ceased Y’s EHC Plan and accepted that it sent the wrong letter to Y in March 2024, when it advised him it was ceasing to maintain his EHC Plan.
• accepted it was aware Y wished to remain in education as the 2023 annual review indicated this.
• accepted that it had not progressed Y’s reassessment for a three month period, until Mrs X complained in January 2025.
• Accepted that an Education Psychologist’s (EP) report was not received until mid-June 2025.
30. The Council also said it was the responsibility of Y and his parents to inform the local authority when there are changes to career plans or when a young person leaves a setting named in their EHCP and they had not done so.
31. I disagree with the Council. Whilst this could have helped reduce any scope for mistakes, the Council accepted that it was aware Y wished to remain in education through the 2023 annual review. The Council’s subsequent acceptance that it did not cease Y’s EHC Plan and should not have sent the letter saying it was ceasing it, means it should have made further enquiries about what manner of education Y was pursuing and reviewed his EHC Plan in 2024. It did not. Y was left with an EHC Plan which needed to be updated and did not reflect his current situation and needs.
32. The Council should have completed an annual review in 2024 of Y’s EHC Plan. It did not. This is fault by the Council. Y suffered delay in updating his EHC Plan.
33. The Council accepts it delayed actioning Y’s EHC Plan reassessment for three months. This is fault by the Council. Y suffered three additional months delay in completing the statutory assessment process causing injustice (uncertainty and frustration at the delay).
34. The Council accepts there was a delay to completing the reassessment of Y’s EHC Plan because it was waiting for an EP report. This is service failure by the Council. Y suffered six months delay in updating his EHC Plan.
35. The total delay suffered by Y in updating his EHC Plan was between September 2024 to August 2025, a period of approximately one year, representing three terms of missed special educational provision. Half of this delay was due to the delay waiting for the Educational Psychologist’s report.
36. Mrs X says that her daughter moved out of her house in January 2025. This means that had Y been considered to be in full time education she would have been entitled to a single person discount on her Council Tax bill.
37. The Council has considered a request from Mrs X about her Council Tax status and has granted her a discretionary Council Tax award for £351.05 in respect of the period when a single person discount had not been awarded.
38. This further supports the finding in paragraphs 31-34 as the Council would be unlikely to have accepted Mrs X should be awarded the discretionary amount in paragraph 36 unless it considered that Y should have been in full-time education for that period. The only reason it would reach this conclusion is that it had been at fault for not following statutory timescales in relation to maintaining Y’s EHC Plan.
39. I note the Council agreed a personal budget to fund Y’s course at Location C. On the balance of probabilities, this would have been the outcome it would have reached in 2024 had it properly completed a review of Y’s EHC Plan. Y would have been able to begin his course at Location C by September 2024.

The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies

40. Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 to £2,400 per term to acknowledge the harm caused by that loss. The figure should be based on the impact on the child and take account of factors such as:
• The severity of the child’s SEN as set out in their EHC Plan.
• Any educational provision – full time or part time, without some or all of the specified support – that was made during the period.
• Whether additional provision can now remedy some or all of the loss.
• Whether the period concerned was a significant one for the child or young person’s school career – for example the first year of compulsory education, the transfer to secondary school, or the period preparing for public exams.
• Lost or delayed right of appeal to tribunal.
41. Where there has been delay due to not receiving Educational Psychologist reports, the Ombudsman will usually recommend a remedy payment of £100 for each month.
42. I have considered the above factors in determining an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Action

43. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council should take the following action within 6 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the fault found. We publish 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 Mrs X £1,800 in respect of delay and missed special education provision for Y over a 6-month period.
• Pay Mrs X £600 in respect of the 6-month delay period due to waiting for an Educational Psychologist report.
• Provide an action plan showing how it intends to ensure that EHC Plan annual reviews are properly completed within the statutory timeframes.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman