Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to complete an Annual Review of her son Y’s Education Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales and to deliver all special educational provision included in his plan. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Y and Mrs X. The Council has already apologised and made a payment to recognise Mrs X’s distress. The Council has also agreed to make a payment to recognise Y’s loss of provision and an extra distress payment for Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council failed to complete an Annual Review of her son Y’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan and stopped delivering special educational provision included in his EHC Plan before issuing an amended plan.
2. The Council’s failings, Mrs X says, caused injustice to Y as for many months he did not receive the provision he needed. They caused also injustice to Mrs X as she kept asking the Council to complete the review process. She was distressed by the discontinuation of the provision without giving her appeal rights.

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. In determining whether to initiate, continue or discontinue an investigation we act in accordance with our own discretion, subject to the provisions of sections 24A, 26 and 26D of the Local Government Act 1974. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
6. 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)
7. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
8. 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.
9. 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)
10. 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

11. Mrs X brought two complaints to the Council: in November 2024 about the Council’s delays with completing Y’s Annual Review and in July 2025 about the Council’s delays and its failure to deliver provision included in Y’s EHC Plan. The Council responded to both complaints. In the second complaint Mrs X also raised the issue of the Annual Review delay which had been continuing. I have, therefore, decided to consider both complaints during my investigation.
12. I have not investigated events after the beginning of August 2025, when the Council issued Y's final post-review EHC Plan. This is because if Mrs X had been unhappy with the Council’s amendments in Section F, she could have appealed to the SEND Tribunal. This would be the right way to challenge the Council’s position on the special educational provision for Y.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Mrs 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 guidance

Annual reviews

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 discontinue 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. 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.
17. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against the description of a child or young person’s special educational needs (SEN), the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified and amendments to these elements of an EHC Plan.

Delivery of special educational provision

18. The council has a duty to secure special educational provision specified in an EHC Plan for the child or young person. (Children and Families Act S.42)
19. It is inappropriate for the council to seek to delegate to the school the responsibility for ensuring that the requirements of a child’s EHC Plan are delivered. The statutory responsibility for securing the special educational provision specified in the EHC Plan rests with the council, not the school. It is for the council to prove that it is doing all it can to meet its legal duty to secure for a child the special educational provision to which he is entitled. (R (on the application of HXN) v Redbridge London Borough Council [2024] EWHC 443 (Admin))

What happened

20. Section F of Y’s EHC Plan issued in December 2020 included the Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) provision at school and additional hours of ABA to be used flexibly for home or school holiday periods. The ABA provision at school was to be reviewed each year during an Annual Review and extra hours of ABA were to be reviewed each term.
21. At the end of September 2024 Y’s school (the School) held an Annual Review meeting for Y. The Council’s case officer attended the meeting. Mrs X asked for the increase of the ABA provision for Y. The School recorded in the meeting notes that Y needed:
• a lot of support to be able to function and engage in activities;
• individual support all the time;
• at times two members of staff;
• consistency in his support team to reduce his anxiety;
• continuation of specialist support from the Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) service;
• continuation of specialist support from the Behaviour service;
• Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA) consultant.
22. In the third week of November Mrs X complained to the Council about the lack of decision after the review of Y’s EHC Plan. After the Council’s response in mid-December Mrs X asked for her complaint to be taken to stage two of the complaint process. She claimed the Council had failed to take responsibility for its failings, had not offered suitable remedies and had failed to satisfy Mrs X that it would not repeat the same failings in the future.
23. The Council sent its stage two response to Mrs X at the beginning of January 2025. The Council reiterated its apology from stage one response and said: “The delay in [Y’s] case was caused by human error rather than systemic failings. However, the SEND team has taken steps to reinforce consistent mailbox monitoring to prevent similar issues in the future. Additionally, the Stage 1 response highlighted ongoing restructuring efforts aimed at improving the team’s capacity and processes.”
24. At the end of March 2025, at the Council’s request, the School provided evidence about the ABA provision for Y.
25. In mid-May SEN officer wrote to the School. They sought confirmation that no amendments should be made to Y’s EHC Plan following the review of his plan in September 2024. The officer also asked the School to state if Y was still receiving his ABA provision.
26. The School replied that the review documents clearly stated Section F of Y’s EHC Plan needed to be amended in relation to Y’s ABA provision. The School said it was the Council, rather than the School, who was funding ABA and this provision for Y had now stopped.
27. The School told the Council that during the Annual Review of Y’s EHC Plan in September 2024 Mrs X requested amendments to Section F of Y’s EHC Plan to increase ABA provision.
28. At the beginning of June 2025 the Council asked the School when Y’s ABA provision had stopped and asked for a recent report from Y’s ABA tutors.
29. At the end of June 2025 the Council’s SEN Panel did not agree to continue funding for ABA provision for Y.
30. Mrs X complained again in mid-July 2025. She said the Council had been failing to deliver the ABA provision included in Y’s EHC Plan. She also mentioned the Council’s continuing failure to complete the review process.
31. At the end of July 2025 the Council told Mrs X it would amend Y’s EHC Plan by removing ABA provision from Section F.
32. In its response to Mrs X’s second complaint the Council apologised for the delays in completing the Annual Review process and for its failure to ensure Y received his ABA provision from the end of March 2025. The Council offered £500 to recognise Mrs X’s distress caused by the delays and missed provision.
33. Mrs X accepted £500 but did not consider it was enough to remedy her and Y’s injustice caused by the withdrawal of ABA and the Council’s delays.
34. At the beginning of August 2025 the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan which did not include ABA in Section F. The plan specified it would be reviewed at the end of September 2025.
35. Mrs X told us she had not appealed Y’s EHC Plan as she wanted to wait for the plan to be reviewed first. Due to some circumstances on her part the review of Y’s EHC Plan got postponed.

Analysis

Delay with issuing EHC Plan following Annual Review

36. After the Annual Review meeting which was held at the end of September 2024, the Council should have sent Mrs X its decision whether it would amend Y’s EHC Plan in the fourth week of October 2024. This happened nine months later, in July 2025. Instead of issuing Y’s final amended EHC Plan in mid-December 2024, the Council did so at the beginning of August 2025.
37. The delay of nine months in sending the Council’s post-review decision to Mrs X and seven and a half months in issuing Y’s amended EHC Plan are fault. This fault caused injustice to Mrs X as at the review meeting she asked for the increase of ABA provision for Y and was anxious to get the Council’s response. She had to wait extra nine months, which was frustrating and meant she spent much time contacting the Council and complaining.
38. Mrs X’s distress was increased by the fact that in its response to her first complaint raised in November 2024 the Council apologised and said it would complete Y’s Annual Review process without further delay. This did not happen and the process was not concluded for the further seven months. This is fault.
39. The Council’s fault did not cause injustice to Y. Although in July 2025 the Council decided to amend Y’s EHC Plan, the amendment was to take out the ABA provision from Section F. Therefore the delay in issuing Y’s amended EHC Plan meant that the Council was responsible for ensuring Y received the ABA provision for longer, than it would have been if not for the Council’s delay.

Non-delivery of special educational provision

40. As explained in paragraph 18 of this decision councils are responsible for ensuring delivery of special educational provision specified in Section F of children’s EHC Plans.
41. The Council stopped funding ABA for Y from the end of March 2025, despite this provision being specified in his EHC Plan. This is fault, which the Council accepted in its response to Mrs X’s second complaint.
42. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Y. He had been receiving ABA for many years and the withdrawal of this provision, without following due process, must have been very disruptive for him. At the Annual Review in September 2024 his high level of needs was emphasised and ABA was listed among the strategies needed for his support. In such circumstances following the right process before stopping this provision was particularly important.
43. The Council’s fault caused also injustice to Mrs X. She was distressed at the Council’s withdrawal of funding and could not challenge the Council’s position. She considered ABA was necessary to ensure Y’s engagement with education and community and in September 2024 was asking for the increase of this provision. Discontinuation of this provision without following due process caused Mrs X significant distress.

Record keeping

44. The correspondence between the Council and the School from spring 2025 shows serious failings with the Council’s record keeping. Specifically the Council failed to keep records of:
• the Annual Review of Y’s EHC Plan which started in September 2024;
• its decision to stop funding Y’s ABA provision from the end of March 2025.
45. In our guidance notes ‘Principles of good administrative Practice’ we explain that good record keeping is necessary for councils to be open and accountable. This did not happen for Y which had negative consequences for Mrs X. It meant that there was further delay in completing Y’s Annual Review process as the Council had to ask the School for information about the Annual Review meeting from September 2024, which it should have already had. Some extra time was also spent on communicating with the School about Y’s ABA, which should have not been necessary.

Personal remedies

46. In its response to Mrs X’s complaint from the end of July 2025 the Council apologised for its failings with completing the Annual Review process on time and for non-delivery of ABA from the end of March 2025. The Council also offered £500 to recognise Mrs X’s distress caused by the Council’s failings.
47. The Council’s failure to complete Y’s Annual Review was prolonged and extended well beyond the Council’s response to Mrs X’s first complaint. This meant that Mrs X needed to complain again. The length of time, the Council’s lack of accountability as well as the cumulation of the Council’s failings meant that Mrs X’s distress was significant. I have, therefore, decided to add an extra payment of £250 to recognise the extent of Mrs X’s injustice.
48. The Council failed to offer financial remedy to recognise Y’s loss of provision from the end of March to July 2025.

Service improvements

49. In recent decisions we have criticised the Council for the similar failings and have recommended the Council:
• review how it ensures that the provision in an EHC plan is being provided, and make changes if needed, in order to avoid what has happened. If changes are implemented, they should be shared with all relevant staff. If there is an appropriate process in place, the Council should remind relevant staff of the need to comply with this;
• issue reminders to relevant staff about the importance of contemporaneous record keeping around the Council’s decisions in relation to its section 19 and section 42 duties;
• develop a handover process. This is to ensure that temporary staff, or those who give notice to leave, hand over their records onto the main record management system;
• remind relevant staff of the statutory requirement to issue written decisions following reviews of EHC plan.
50. We should allow the Council some time to implement improvements in its services. We will be monitoring effectiveness of the Council’s improvement work through our casework.

Back to top

Action

51. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council complete within four weeks of the final decision the following:
• pay Mrs X £970 to recognise Y’s loss of the ABA provision from the end of March to July 2025;
• pay Mrs X £250 in addition to £500 already paid by the Council to recognise distress caused to her by the Council’s failings identified in this investigation.

The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations, so this investigation is at an end.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman