Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s actions with how it handled his child’s special educational needs and legal paperwork since they moved into its area. We found the Council at fault for how it dealt with the plan transfer and how it carried out annual review processes with a lack of outcomes or timely decisions made. This caused significant frustration, uncertainty and distress for Mr X, his child and the family. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains, on behalf of his child, that the Council did not appropriately handle his child’s Statement of Special Educational Needs when they moved from Wales to its area around 2023. He also complained about a late annual review in 2025 and the delayed outcome. He says this has caused significant frustration and distress for the family, impacting on his child’s physical and mental wellbeing as their needs had not been properly assessed by the Council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mr X’s complaint relates to the Council’s actions around Y’s education and special educational needs (SEN) after they moved from Wales to England around 2023. One outcome this led to is Y being out of education until September 2023. Mr X complained to us in June 2025. This part is late (see Paragraph 3). Mr X complained to the Council at the time. Despite chasing, he said the Council did not formally respond or follow its complaints policy. He knew of the matters then and if Mr X did not consider this resolved, he could have escalated to us then. Given this, I will not consider this issue as I am satisfied Mr X could have complained to us much sooner about this part.
7. The main areas I will focus on with this complaint is a) the transfer of the Statement of SEN and b) the annual reviews. I consider these two issues are linked to each other by a) which relates to Council actions in early 2023. This means I need to refer to these as relevant background context to make sense for my investigation. There is an element of continuing fault which feeds into the specific period I am considering. It also appears Mr X was not fully aware of a) until January 2025. I am therefore exercising discretion to consider injustice from the November 2023 annual review.
8. I have investigated up until May 2025. This is when Mr X received the outcome to the January 2025 review with a final Education, Health and Care Plan. Any new or ongoing events since that point needs to be a new, separate complaint to the Council, and then us.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I discussed the complaint with Mr X and considered his views and information he provided.
10. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr 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 administrative background

Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and Plans

12. An EHC needs assessment is a legal process conducted by local authorities in England to identify a child’s special educational needs and the required support. It determines if an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan if necessary.
13. A child or young person with special educational needs in England may have an EHC Plan. This legally binding 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 Code provides specific guidance at Paragraphs 9.157 to 9.162 about what happens when a child with an EHC Plan moves between local authority areas. The new authority may, on the transfer of the EHC Plan, bring forward the arrangements for a review of the plan, and may conduct a new EHC needs assessment. The new authority must tell the child’s parent, within six weeks of the date of transfer, when they will review the plan and whether they propose to make an EHC needs assessment.

Children and Families Act 2014

15. Section 36(3) of the Children and Families Act 2014 says: “When a [Education, Health and Care needs assessment] request is made to a local authority…or a local authority otherwise becomes responsible for a child or young person, the authority must determine whether it may be necessary for special educational provision to be made for the child or young person in accordance with an EHC plan”. Section 36(4) says: In making a determination under subsection (3), the local authority must consult the child’s parent or young person.

Reviewing EHC Plans

16. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. A review meeting must take place. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to amend, maintain or cease the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting (SEN Code paragraph 9.176)

Background

17. In early 2023, Mr X and his family moved into the Council area from Wales. In Wales, Mr X’s child (Y) had a Welsh Statement of SEN (SoS) at the time. These have since been phased out and replaced with Individual Development Plans (IDP).
18. Y has SEN, along with physical and health conditions. In September 2023, Y started attending a specialist “College”.

What happened – summary of key relevant events I am considering

19. In November 2023, the College held an annual review. It noted it was working from a SoS which needed converting to an EHC Plan using the supporting information. The records show it suggested amendments to current provision, and it believed it was meeting Y’s needs. The Council did not send an outcome decision letter to Mr X after this review.
20. In early January 2025, the College held an annual review. It noted Y’s progress in activities and learning which it supported them with. It was of the view Y would benefit from a more bespoke education package. The College felt Y’s Plan needed changes. It said Y still did not have a finalised EHC Plan. It would chase the Council on this.
21. In mid-January 2025, Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council. He said the College made him aware the Council had failed to convert Y’s SoS into an EHC Plan for the past two academic years.
22. In early February 2025, the Council responded at Stage 1. It upheld the complaint. It apologised for not doing this since November 2023 and for no annual review since. The next month, Mr X escalated his complaint, with dissatisfaction about the inaccuracy of the Council’s response.
23. In early March 2025, the College held an interim review which the Council attended. The College said since the end of January 2025, it put in further provision and support for Y’s needs, including an individualised curriculum delivered on a 1:1 basis.
24. In early April 2025, the Council responded to Mr X’s complaint at Stage 2. It upheld it and apologised for the confusion caused. It recognised it did not have sufficient oversight over Y’s case which caused it to be overlooked.
25. In mid-May 2025, Mr X made a second formal complaint to the Council. Y still had an outdated SoS after a late annual review in January 2025 and an interim review in March 2025 but still no decision made. In June 2025, Mr X complained to us.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

26. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it decided to create an EHC Plan for Y in early 2023. It did this in May 2025. It said it normally uses annual reviews to convert documents, and it missed opportunities to do this since. It used the SoS as guidance when sourcing provision and treated the content with the same significance as an EHC Plan, as well as at annual reviews, which enabled the College placement.

Analysis

Early 2023

27. In Wales, the legal relevant document was the SoS (now IDP). In England, it is an EHC Plan. They are not equivalents. Each country operates under a separate and different legal framework system.
28. There is no specific legislation or Government guidance that specifically addresses the circumstances of a child in Y’s position who has an SoS and makes a cross-border move from Wales to England, and what should happen.
29. Mr X says the Council failed to conduct a needs assessment for Y when they moved. Mr X points to the legislation in Paragraph 15, which could be said to be relevant and apply here, as the Council ‘became responsible’ for Y. In his view, this says it must do one at this point. I disagree. The wording says a council “must determine whether it may be necessary for special educational provision to be made…in accordance with an EHC plan”. I consider this means the Council must formally decide if it should do an assessment or determine if an EHC Plan is required, not that it should do an assessment automatically.
30. I’ve also considered the Code (see Paragraph 14), which would support this in principle. I recognise this applies to children moving between local authorities within England. But in the absence of direct formal guidance on cross-border moves, I consider it reasonable to follow the spirit of this in these circumstances.
31. With the above in mind, when Mr X moved, the Council should have decided whether to conduct an EHC needs assessment for Y, or if it should create an EHC Plan. The Council said to me it decided to do the latter. There are no contemporaneous case notes showing clear evidence of this or showing how it decided this. It did not consult Mr X about this at the time. This was a missed opportunity to gather and consider his views before it made a decision. Regardless of this, it agreed to take legal responsibility from this point and the Council failed to act with an EHC Plan or communicate to Mr X. This is fault.
32. Now I consider how this fault affected the time period I am considering (see Paragraphs 7-8), and the injustice.

November 2023 annual review and January 2025 annual review

33. The Council did not complete the November 2023 annual review. It did not send Mr X a decision letter on what it decided to do with Y’s Plan. This would indicate a lack of oversight about Y’s needs or circumstances at the time. The Council also still failed to create an EHC Plan at this point. This is fault.
34. The January 2025 annual review was two months late. This is fault. While the College arranged it, the Council is ultimately responsible for monitoring annual reviews and ensuring they are carried out in statutory timeframes. The Council also did not send a decision within four weeks of the meeting. This is further fault.
35. These were treated as annual reviews, but regardless of this, Y did not have a relevant legal EHC Plan at these points. This denied Mr X any formal appeal rights even if it had sent decision letters. There were also large gaps in communication. This is fault.
36. After January 2025, Mr X made the Council aware of the recent annual review and Y still did not have an EHC Plan. This should have put the Council to notice to act on this, the latest by 12 weeks of the meeting (April 2024). It did this a month later that it should have. This delay is fault. I see an interim review took place in March 2025 which may have overtaken some events, but I do not consider it should have reset the original timeframe.

Injustice

37. There is clear administrative fault by the Council, and this stemmed from events in 2023. I now need to consider the injustice within the period I am considering.
38. The main substance of Mr X’s complaint is that Y did not have a legal EHC Plan throughout this. But on balance, despite this, I do not consider this, in itself, was directly detrimental to support Y received at the time.
39. There does not appear to be a loss of education as Y had good attendance at the College. It was the named placement in the Plan. From annual review records, it made provision available to Y, based on what was in their SoS. I also have not seen evidence that Mr X raised long standing concerns about a lack of, or need for, additional provision for Y’s needs during this time with the Council.
40. The Council’s fault with its lack of oversight or evidenced consideration of Y’s needs after November 2023 meant it did not make a decision or properly review the provision in place. But, on balance, I cannot say what provision, if any, the Council may have decided Y needed and include in their Plan. It would be dependent on the circumstances at the time. Therefore, I cannot say the Council’s actions caused Y to miss out on specific provision. Rather, the injustice it caused was a significant level of uncertainty about what could have happened, had it not been for these faults, and if it could have made a difference to Y’s situation sooner.
41. Overall, this and other faults identified also caused significant frustration, distress and missed opportunities for Mr X, Y and the family. Although I note this injustice is likely to be retrospective, after learning about this in January 2025.
42. Mr X also says the lack of a formal reassessment at the start means the Council has not fully analysed Y’s needs through reports or professional input, as there have been significant changes. He says this resulted in a gap in provision. I recognise he says Y has suffered physically and mentally during this but on the basis above, I cannot directly link this alleged impact to the administrative fault.
43. However, given Mr X has raised concerns about the reassessment issue, in my view the Council missed the chance to formally consider if this was necessary, sooner. I recommend it now does this below.

Back to top

Agreed Action

44. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X and Y for the injustice caused by the faults identified (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) and pay a symbolic payment of £500 to recognise the uncertainty, distress and frustration caused; and
• It should formally consider if it should carry out a formal reassessment of Y’s needs. It should write to Mr X with its decision and reasons. If it decides to, it should follow the relevant assessment process. If it decides not to, it should ensure its decision outlines Mr X’s appeal rights.
45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
46. In a previous decision around delays with EHC Plans, we asked the Council to create an action plan of steps it would take to address these issues. In July 2025, the Council sent this. It had recently fully restructured its SEND team with increased staffing and resources and invested significantly in SEND early years support. This is after the events I considered in this complaint, and this needs time to embed improvements. For this reason, I have not made a further recommendation.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman