Summary: Mrs B complained the Council failed to offer her son a place at a specialist setting and issue his amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescale following the annual review of the Plan. There was fault by the Council. Following the annual review meeting, it did not meet statutory timescales when issuing its notice to amend the Plan and issuing the amended final EHC Plan. Because of the fault, Mrs B suffered distress and frustration and her right to appeal to the Tribunal was delayed. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complains the Council failed to:
• offer her son, who I will refer to as C, a place at a specialist setting; and
• issue his amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescale following the annual review of the Plan.
2. As a result, Mrs B says she has suffered distress and uncertainty, and her right to appeal was delayed.
3. Mrs B would like the Council to acknowledge and take accountability for its failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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.
7. 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)
8. 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

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated matters in this case from mid-December 2024 when the annual review of C’s EHC Plan took place, to early July 2025 when the Council issued the amended final EHC Plan for C.
10. I have not investigated any matters about the contents of C’s final EHC Plan issued in July 2025, or other related matters after this point. This is for the reason outlined in paragraph 5. The amended final EHC Plan gave Mrs B the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. Once an appeal right takes effect, we cannot consider matters which can be considered through an appeal to the SEND Tribunal. As Mrs B has used her right of appeal, we cannot consider matters after the point the appeal right came into effect.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I read Mrs B’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
12. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mrs B 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

EHC Plan 

14. 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. 

Content of an EHC Plan

15. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which includes section I. Section I outlines the name and/or type of educational placement 

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. 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) 
17. 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.

Back to top

What happened

18. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
19. C has an EHC Plan. The Council reviewed C’s EHC Plan in mid-December 2024. It issued its notice to amend the EHC Plan with a copy of the draft Plan in mid-April 2025. The Council issued the amended final EHC Plan in early July 2025. Section I of the EHC Plan named a mainstream setting.
20. Mrs B appealed the content of section I of the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal. The Council conceded the appeal and agreed to name a specialist setting in section I of C’s EHC Plan.

Back to top

Analysis

21. It is clear from the documentation there has been delays in this case. The Council did not write to Mrs B with its notice to amend the EHC Plan within four weeks of the annual review meeting. The meeting took place on 12 December 2024. The Council sent its notification to amend the EHC Plan to Mrs B on 16 April 2025. It also did not write to Mrs B with the amended final EHC Plan within eight weeks of the amendment notice. The Council issued the final EHC Plan on 8 July 2025. This is a delay of roughly 17 weeks.
22. The Council’s failure to meet the statutory timescales was fault and has caused an injustice to Mrs B. The 17 week wait delayed Mrs B’s right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal until it issued the final EHC Plan in July 2025 and has caused Mrs B distress and frustration. I have made recommendations below in paragraph 26 to reflect this.
23. I have not made any service improvement recommendations. This is because there does not appear to be any current themes within our casework which highlight a systemic issue within the Council in relation to the fault identified in this case. We do however monitor emerging themes and issues in the complaints that are brought to us and will make service improvement recommendations where appropriate which we carefully monitor to help drive improvement to council services.
24. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
25. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.

Back to top

Action

26. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mrs B by the fault I have identified, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs B for the injustice caused by the Council’s delays in the annual review process. This apology should be made in line with our guidance Making an effective apology.
• Pay Mrs B £500 for the distress, frustration and delayed right of appeal caused by the Council’s delays during the annual review procedure and issuing of the amended final EHC Plan.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I uphold Mrs B’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman