Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s management of Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mr Y anxiety and prevented him from making progress or achieving his outcomes. The Council was at fault for delays completing annual reviews and delays funding Mr Y’s provision. The Council agreed to provide a financial remedy for Mr Y’s missed provision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s management of Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Specifically, she complained:
• Mr Y missed mentoring sessions in December 2024 and January 2025 after his mentor left, and Miss X was not informed or updated.
• Mr Y’s EHC Plan is outdated and the Council delayed updating it after reviews.
• The Council’s communication was poor, and it failed to respond to Miss X’s requests.
• Mr Y’s provision for the 2025/26 academic year was delayed by the Council not releasing the necessary funding.
2. Miss X said Mr Y needs continuity, and the Council’s handling of his EHC Plan has caused him anxiety and prevented him from making progress or achieving his outcomes.

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. As part of the investigation, I considered the complaint and the information Miss X provided.
7. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered its response along with relevant law and guidance.
8. Miss 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

Special educational needs

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. 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. 
10. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’) sets out the process for carrying out EHC assessments and producing EHC Plans. The guidance is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014.
11. As part of the assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). This includes: 

• the child’s educational placement; 
• medical advice and information from health care professionals involved with the child; 
• psychological advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP); 
• social care advice and information; 
• advice and information from any person requested by the parent or young person, where the council considers it reasonable; and 
• any other advice and information the council considers appropriate for a satisfactory assessment. 

12. The council must not seek further advice if it already has advice and “the person providing the advice, the local authority and the child’s parent or the young person are all satisfied that it is sufficient for the assessment process”. In making this decision the council and the person providing the advice should ensure the advice remains current.  
13. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
14. 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) 
15. 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.
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.

What happened

17. I have summarised below some key events leading to Miss X’s complaint. This is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
18. Mr Y has an EHC Plan and receives Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS). He has Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and social communication disorder, sensory difficulties, and learning difficulties.
19. Mr Y’s provision for 2023 to 2024 included one to one mentoring from the Somerset Activity and Sports Partnership (SASP) and tuition from an alternative education provider. However, Miss X said the tutoring was online, which was not suitable for Mr Y and he did not access it.
20. The Council held an annual review of Mr Y’s EHC Plan on 10 January 2024. The recommendation from the review meeting was for the Plan to be maintained with no changes.
21. Miss X was paying for a therapy dog training course and requested the Council fund this going forward.
22. The Council wrote to Miss X on 4 April 2024 confirming the outcome of the review and that it did not intend to make changes to Mr Y’s EHC Plan. The letter confirms Miss X’s right of appeal if she was unhappy.
23. Mr Y’s support worker from SASP emailed the Council on 15 April 2024 asking for an urgent meeting to discuss where Mr Y was currently at. That was because Mr Y was back to not wanting to leave the house. The support worker was concerned for Mr Y’s wellbeing and wanted to discuss specialist support. They did not feel Mr Y’s EHC Plan reflected where Mr Y was at that time, as it was very school support focused.
24. A meeting was held on 22 May 2024, attended by the Council’s Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) information, advice and support service, a SEND officer, Mr Y’s parents, and the SASP. They discussed Mr Y’s progress and struggles. The SEND officer thought they should have more regular meetings to track Mr Y’s engagement. Miss X raised the possibility of Mr Y doing assistance dog training, to support his health and wellbeing and work prospects.
25. Actions from the meeting included looking into funding for SASP, looking into funding for the assistance dog training programme, and looking into direct payments.
26. Miss X emailed the Council on 13 January 2025 stating Mr Y could not access his support as the mentor did not turn up for the third week in a row, without letting them know. She tried to call the provider, but it did not get back to her.
27. The Council contacted the provider about Mr Y’s mentoring support on 20 January.
28. The Council was also in the process of applying for funding for Miss X to employ a personal assistant for Mr Y, plus for assistive technology.
29. The Council told Miss X it was following up with the provider. It said it did not currently have an officer allocated to Mr Y’s case, but it would do in due course to hold the annual review.
30. Miss X complained to the Council on 24 January 2025 about unmet provision. She said Mr Y had not had his weekly mentoring sessions since December.
31. The Council emailed Miss X on 17 April 2025 to arrange the annual review meeting. It gave her some available dates in May.
32. The Council also responded to Miss X’s complaint on 17 April 2025. It said it followed up with the provider in January 2025 to understand why provision was not taking place. The Council said it had confirmation on 18 March that a new mentor was meeting Mr Y each week. The Council apologised for the gaps in provision and the impact on Miss X and Mr Y. It said it raised this with the provider.
33. The Council held the next annual review of Mr Y’s EHC Plan on 12 May 2025. Miss X asked for another year of EOTAS. She said Mr Y did not get to fully access his current EOTAS package due to funding delays by the Council, sessions cancelled by the provider, and inconsistencies in alternative provision workers. Mr Y needed another year of EOTAS to improve his functional skills.
34. The Council recorded Mr Y’s needs had not changed. It proposed to amend section A and B of his Plan, but not to make any changes to his provision.
35. Miss X made a stage two complaint to the Council on 15 May. She complained about poor communication and lack of updates about provision, and about delays amending Mr Y’s EHC Plan.
36. The Council wrote to Miss X on 16 May 2025 enclosing an EHC Plan amendment notice. It asked for Miss X’s views on the changes.
37. The Council sent its stage two complaint response on 12 June 2025. It acknowledged Mr Y’s missed mentoring in December 2024 and January 2025, and a lack of communication around this, would have been frustrating and distressing. It said it did follow up with the provider when Miss X highlighted the issue, and it since received confirmation the provider was meeting Mr Y each week. It said Miss X could contact the provider about making up the missed sessions, and the Council would contact them if this was unsuccessful.
38. The Council acknowledged its communication did not always meet expectations. It said it issued an amendment notice on 16 May 2025, and the previous annual review was held in 2024. It said the Plan was now being updated to reflect Mr Y’s current needs. It said it understood Miss X’s frustration with the delay, but the amendment process was now underway.
39. The Council wrote to Miss X on 2 July 2025 enclosing the final amended EHC Plan. This letter confirmed Miss X’s right to appeal to the Tribunal if she was unhappy.
40. The Council also emailed Miss X confirming it had no update on when an EP would be available to review section F due to lack of capacity in the department. It said it had agreed funding for the next academic year, and Mr Y would have an EOTAS package again. This included two hours a week alternative learning provision for functional skills, one mentoring session a week, and an assistance dog training programme.
41. Miss X emailed the Council on 8 July chasing a response to her emails from 9 and 20 June and 1 July. She asked how to get funding for the dog training course and how she finds out the provision from the alternative learning provider. She asked if the Council had informed the mentoring provider. She also asked why an updated EP report could not be added to Mr Y’s Plan, and for an update on the gardening course she requested.
42. The Council said it would pay the dog training provider direct, and it told the provider where to send invoices. It would also pay the alternative learning provider direct, and they would get in touch to answer Miss X’s questions. The Council said it did not add the gardening course to the package as it was suggested after the package was finalised and going through the funding process. On Rep’s request for an updated EP report, the Council said if section F of the Plan was to be reviewed it would do this at the next annual review.
43. Miss X said the dog trainer was still waiting for a response from the Council so it could generate an invoice. They cannot proceed without this. Miss X said she discussed the gardening course before the funding panel. She also asked the Council to instruct the mentoring provider that they will be having Mr Y again in September, as they still had not been formally told. Miss X said she needed to know what was happening in September so she could arrange her working patterns as she cannot attend things at short notice.
44. The Council emailed Miss X on 20 August 2025, repeating that the gardening request came last minute when it was already going through the funding process. Miss X said this is factually incorrect. The gardening course was discussed in May 2025, and was referred to in an email she sent to the Council on 9 June 2025.
45. Miss X emailed the Council on 9 and 25 September 2025 chasing when Mr Y’s provision would start for the 2025 academic year.

My investigation

46. Miss X told me the Council failed to pay on time for Mr Y’s provision each year, so it started late. She also said Mr Y’s allocated worker changes each year, and the Council does not tell her so when she asks for updates, she gets no response and must complain.
47. Miss X said Mr Y’s mentoring sessions stopped at the end of 2024 because the mentor was off sick. Miss X was not informed about this and received no response when asking for updates. The Council agreed to make up the missed sessions with a new mentor. However, the new mentor also left. Mr Y needs consistency and it takes a long time for him to trust a new mentor. He had three mentors last year and struggled to make any progress as a result.
48. Mr Y was supposed to have dog training as part of his provision. As of January 2026, this had not started as the Council did not fund the provision until November 2025 and Miss X was not available. She had arranged to be available for three months from September to November 2025.
49. Miss X told me Mr Y’s mentoring provision was supposed to start in September 2025. However, it did not start until October because the Council had not signed the contract. Mr Y missed a month of sessions, and the Council said this cannot be backdated due to lack of capacity.
50. Miss X said the Council held Mr Y’s annual review in June 2025. The Council updated his EHC Plan, but Miss X considers it is out of date because it contains an EP report from October 2020 which is not up to date, and the EP did not meet Mr Y. Miss X asked the Council to get an up-to-date EP report, but it declined.
51. The Council acknowledged there was a delay in issuing the outcome letter from the January 2024 annual review as it did not send the letter until April. It said it was waiting for additional reports. It had a report from the advisory teacher dated 25 January and received the OT review on 3 April.
52. The Council said it was processing the extension of funding for the EOTAS package during this time to ensure it had financial agreement before sharing the outcome of the annual review.
53. The Council confirmed it did not agree to make changes to Mr Y’s EHC Plan in 2024.
54. The Council does not consider Mr Y’s EHC Plan to be out of date. It updated his Plan following the 2025 annual review. That was using evidence gathered through the annual review from those who know Mr Y, including professionals. The Council does not consider Mr Y needs an EP assessment. It said Miss X had a right of appeal if she disagreed with the contents of Mr Y’s updated final EHC Plan.
55. The Council provided me with an email exchange from the tutoring provider. The provider confirmed the Council referred Mr Y to them in June 2025 and sessions officially started on 8 September 2025. The provider said it could not start sooner as it did not receive confirmation of funding before the end of the academic year.
56. The Council said it has re-established Mr Y’s mentoring and this is now in place and reported to be working well.
57. The Council did not say the reason for the delays, however. It also did not give me any details about delays with the dog training provision.
58. The Council said it had discussions with Mr Y’s family in February 2026 about the gardening course Mr Y wanted. The provider the family would like are not a registered provider. Therefore, the Council would not commission directly as it has no oversight of the quality, compliance or safeguarding. If parents wished for it to be delivered as a direct payment, the Council could consider this. The Council said it would continue to work on this as it moves forwards with the family.

Analysis

59. Following the 2024 annual review, the Council issued its decision not to amend the EHC Plan on 4 April 2024. The Council recognised this decision was delayed, which is fault. However, as there were no changes and no interruption to the provision, there was no significant injustice. The Council also told Miss X about her right of appeal if she disagreed with its decision.
60. Miss X initially complained about missed mentoring sessions in December 2024 and January 2025. The Council accepted fault. It apologised and made up for the missed sessions. I consider this to be a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by the missed sessions at that time, and it is in line with what we would recommend.
61. I appreciate Miss X said the mentor changed again, causing more disruption to Mr Y. However, this is not the fault of the Council, and it cannot control education provider staffing changes.
62. The Council should have held the 2025 annual review meeting by 7 March, and it should then have issued its decision on whether to amend the Plan by 4 April 2025. It did not do so, which is fault. Its amendment notice was issued on 16 May. That was a delay of about six weeks. Again, I did not see evidence of missed provision at that time, so there was no significant injustice.
63. The Council updated Mr Y’s EHC Plan in July 2025, but Miss X said it was still out of date. She said that was because it included an EP report which is out of date, and the EP never met Mr Y. The Council’s decision in July 2025 came with a right of appeal which Miss X could have used if she disagreed with the Council’s decision.
64. Miss X said there were funding delays which meant Mr Y’s provision started late. The Council said it agreed funding by summer 2025, and before the new academic year in September 2025.
65. I found Mr Y’s tutoring started in September so was not delayed. Miss X said mentoring started in October, but the Council would not backdate the month of missed sessions due to lack of capacity. The Council did not confirm or dispute this in response to my enquiries. On balance, it appears Mr Y missed a month of mentoring. The Council should therefore provide a remedy for this.
66. Miss X said the Council did not fund Mr Y’s dog training provision until November 2025, and she was then unavailable to help Mr Y start. Again, the Council did not confirm or dispute this in response to my enquiries. The provision should have started in September 2025. Miss X’s availability is outside of the Council’s control, and the provision could have started by November 2025. On balance, it appears the Council delayed any potential start date by at least two months, and it should provide a remedy for this.
67. We usually recommend £900 to £2,400 per term where fault results in a loss of educational provision. This is dependent on factors like the severity of the SEN, any educational provision made during the period, and whether additional provision can now remedy some of the loss.
68. A month of missed mentoring is about one third of a term and would be four sessions. Mr Y still had tutoring provision in place at this time, so I consider £300 for this period is suitable.
69. Two months of missed dog training is about two thirds of a term. Again, Mr Y still had provision in place during this time, so I consider £600 is suitable.
70. The Council also accepted its communication with Miss X was poor. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration. In the period between annual reviews, Mr Y did not have an allocated worker. This meant Miss X’s emails were often sent to previous case workers and she did not receive a response. The Council should liaise with Miss X to ensure she has a point of contact or dedicated email address she can use in-between annual reviews.

Back to top

Agreed Action

71. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise for its delays funding Mr Y’s provision, resulting in missed sessions at the start of the academic year.
• Pay Miss X £900 for Mr Y’s missed mentoring and dog training provision.
• Contact Miss X to arrange a point of contact or dedicated email address she can use in-between annual reviews.
72. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final Decision

73. I found the Council at fault for delays completing annual reviews and delays funding providers for Mr Y’s provision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman