Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her daughter, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained the Council failed to pay for provision, and communication and complaint handling was poor. Mrs X said this frustrated and distressed her. There was fault in the way the Council delayed repaying Mrs X for tuition, delayed issuing the EHC Plan and complaint handling was poor. This distressed and frustrated Mrs X and frustrated her right of appeal to the Tribunal. The Council agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her daughter, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained the Council failed to pay for provision, and communication and complaint handling was poor. Mrs X said this frustrated and distressed her.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’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)
4. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

Background information

8. 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. 
9. 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)  
10. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

11. 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) 
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. 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; and
• amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan.

14. The Council complaint policy says the Council should respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days. The Council should respond to a stage two complaint within 20 working days.

What happened

15. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
16. Y has an EHC Plan. The Council issued Y’s EHC Plan in July 2024, after the previous annual review. The Ombudsman previously completed an investigation into the delays.
17. Y’s school completed the annual review in October 2024. The annual review report confirmed the EHC Plan was not accurate and recommended the Council amend the plan.
18. Mrs X complained to the Council in January 2025. She complained the Council delayed issuing the amended final EHC Plan. She also said the Council failed to pay for provision it agreed to.
19. Mrs X chased the Council in February 2025. She said the Council had not acknowledged her complaint. She asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two.
20. The Council issued a stage one complaint response in March 2025. The Council acknowledged it had not sent the EHC Plan or paid for the provision. The Council upheld the complaint, apologised and said it would resolve the issues within two weeks.
21. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint two weeks later. She said the Council had not resolved her complaint.
22. The Council issued its stage two response in June 2025. The Council upheld Mrs X’s complaint. The response said the Council would:
• Issue a final EHC Plan for Y;
• Repay Mrs X the money for provision she arranged for Y; and
• Offer £200 for the uncertainty of completing the complaint.
23. The Council issued the draft EHC Plan in September 2025.
24. The school completed a further annual review in October 2025. The Council then repaid the £680 Mrs X spent on provision as agreed with the Council.
25. The Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan in December 2025.
26. Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mrs X would like the Council to apologise and review its process.
27. In response to my enquiries the Council accepted the delays in this case and said it has made improvements to its service.

My findings

EHC Plan provision

28. When the Council issued Y’s EHCP in July 2024, it had a duty to secure the special educational provision in the plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Council agreed to fund tuition and Speech and Language Therapy (SALT). The Council accepted it delayed doing this. Mrs X arranged the SALT provision, but the SALT invoiced the Council. The Council agreed to pay for the SALT, but did not pay initially. As Mrs X has not paid for this, and Y received the provision, there is no significant personal injustice to them. The Council then repaid the SALT.
29. The Council repaid Mrs X’s tuition expenses in October 2025, over a year after it issued the EHC Plan. The delay funding the provision is fault, frustrating Mrs X.

EHC Plan

30. Paragraph 11 sets out the Council must issue its decision after the annual review within four weeks. The Council did not issue a decision. This is fault.
31. Paragraph 12 confirms if the Council does amend the plan, it must issue the final EHC Plan within 12 weeks of the annual review. The Council agreed to amend the plan. The Council should have issued the final EHC Plan in January 2025. It issued the final EHC Plan in December 2025, an 11-month delay.
32. The Ombudsman takes the view that councils must abide by the statutory and legislative requirements under the SEN legislation and guidance. The Council’s failure to meet the required timeframes here amounts to fault. This frustrated Mrs X’s appeal right to the Tribunal.

Complaint handling

33. Mrs X complained to the Council in January 2025. The Council should have responded within 10 working days, by the end of January 2025. The Council issued its complaint response in March 2025, a 21 working days delay. This is fault, frustrating Mrs X.
34. The Council should have issued its stage two response by April 2025. It issued its stage two response in June 2025, a 49 working days delay. This is fault, frustrating Mrs X. The Council offered £200 for the delays in the complaint response, but Mrs X confirmed she has not received any payment.

Record keeping

35. The Council has not provided any information from before Mrs X’s complaint in January 2025. The Council admitted an officer who left the Council did not record information. The Council confirmed it should keep records and it did not. This is fault, but this has not caused Mrs X a significant personal injustice.
36. I would usually make service improvement recommendations in a case such as this, but I can see other Ombudsman investigations made these. The Ombudsman is actively monitoring the Council’s learning from these recommendations.

Back to top

Agreed action

37. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mrs X by the fault I have identified, the Council agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X for delaying repaying her for the tuition, delays issuing the EHC Plan and poor complaint handling. 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.
• Pay Mrs X the £200 it offered as an acknowledgement of the time and trouble she has spent pursuing this complaint.
• Pay Mrs X £200 for the delays repaying her for the tuition it agreed to fund.
• Pay Mrs X £300 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by the 11-month delay in issuing Y’s EHC Plan.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

39. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman