Summary: Ms L complains about the Council’s delay in putting in place support for her daughter after it issued an Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complains the Council agreed that its social worker would help her appeal the Plan, but then did not do so. We uphold the complaint due to significant missed provision and because Ms L did not get the support from the social worker, meaning she missed an appeal deadline. The Council has agreed to our recommendations for symbolic remedies and for updates from the Council.

The complaint

1. My summary of the complainant’s (Ms L) complaint is:

• the Council delayed her daughter’s (X) Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan assessment;
• X was not in full-time education for over two years;
• X did not receive the provision set out in her EHC Plan;
• she missed a chance to appeal the contents of the EHC Plan, as the Council’s social worker did not provide the agreed support.

2. Ms L says X suffered an injustice from the delay and missed education. She seeks financial recognition of this and a plan to help her daughter to get back into education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. 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)
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 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 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

9. Unless there are good reasons, the Local Government Act says we should not consider events over 12 months before someone complains to the Ombudsman. Ms L first contacted us in July 2025.
10. I have looked back to events from March 2024. That is when the Council issued its first EHC Plan. After that Ms L says she could not contact X’s case worker for four months. She says she was told by officers to appeal the contents of the EHC Plan and then was not given support to do so (which the Council accepts). That gives reasons why I should investigate matters beyond 12 months. I am not convinced I should go back beyond the EHC Plan. Ms L had earlier complained to us about separable matters concerning her children. So she could have complained about matters preceding the EHC Plan.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Ms L and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Ms L 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

Legal and administrative background

13. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an 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.
14. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice says a council should make sure the provision in an EHC Plan is in place from the date it issues the final EHC Plan. Where the provision is proposed by the council in a draft EHC Plan, the Council should be ready to secure that provision when the EHC Plan is finalised.
15. 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)
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. If a child with an EHC Plan is not in school, a council’s duty to arrange the support set out in the Plan continues. However, part of the Plan might not always be deliverable, such as where the special educational needs support is designed for the child’s normal classroom setting. But we would expect a council to work with educational providers to seek to provide as much as possible of the support in a child’s EHC Plan.

What happened

Background

18. X has a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and has special educational needs (SEN) resulting from this. She moved from primary to secondary school in September 2021. During 2022 her behaviours escalated. X had been a looked after child in the past, so she had a Council assigned social worker. X returned to Ms L’s care at the end of 2022, although Ms L advises me the Council remained her “corporate parent”.
19. X’s school applied for an EHC needs assessment from the Council. The Council issued an EHC Plan in early March 2024.

Events I have investigated

20. The EHC Plan included provision for a bespoke timetable, building up hours towards a full timetable. Provision was to include a “reduced and adapted timetable with vacated lessons used for homework, study skills, social skills coaching, and engaging in immersive and calming activities”.
21. The Council issued a revised EHC Plan in October, naming a school.
22. The Council did not put any of the specialist provision outlined in X’s EHC Plan in place. At first X was not attending school. By February 2025, she was attending school on a part-time basis. That month the Council held an EHC review meeting which noted:

• X’s educational progression had regressed in the previous 12 months;
• Ms L was aware X was not engaging and had worked with the school to try and support the Council to support X;
• environment triggers for X were too challenging in a mainstream school;
• the placement was no longer appropriate. The Council had contacted “many specialist provisions” but none felt able to meet X’s needs;
• X’s EHC Plan needed changing.

23. Following the meeting, the Council agreed to search for a new placement for X.
24. Ms L complained. The Council’s May complaint response found:
1. its response to X’s EHC Plan did not go far enough. This led X to an extended period on a reduced timetable or absent from school;
2. it recommended a further review of X’s EHC Plan to check if there were any updates or adjustments needed, or elements of the Plan which the Council had not delivered;
3. it had agreed that X’s social worker would support Ms L in appealing to the Tribunal. But the appeal was not lodged, and so Ms L had missed the time limit in which to appeal;
4. it recommended remedies including:
• an immediate review of X’s education package;
• its Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) team to offer a financial remedy;
• it would undertake a lessons learnt review to reflect on the issues;
• it apologised for the issues identified in Ms L’s complaint, and for any distress or inconvenience these had caused.
25. Following the Council’s complaint response the Council made more consultations with possible providers, without success.
26. Ms L remained dissatisfied with the Council’s response, so in July 2025, she complained to the Ombudsman.
27. In January 2026 I made enquiries of the Council. Its response advised:
• X had remained on the school’s role throughout the period;
• it did not have any evidence it had carried out the “immediate” review of X’s EHC Plan, recommended as an outcome of Ms L’s complaint. It did not hold a review meeting until December 2025, which it then did not complete. It offered Ms L and X unreserved apologies;
• it did not have any evidence it had offered Ms L a financial remedy as an outcome of Ms L’s complaint. It offered Ms L and X unreserved apologies;
• since Ms L’s complaint, it had “…taken steps to strengthen capacity within the SEND Service to support more consistent delivery. This has included additional training for SEND staff, strengthened internal legal support for complex cases, enhanced commissioning capacity to secure provision more quickly, and an expansion of the SEND Team which is due to be completed imminently”.
28. As a remedy, the Council offered to:
• carry out its earlier recommended remedies: the EHC Plan review and financial remedy;
• ensure that a SEND Caseworker attended an upcoming EHC review meeting and then produced an updated EHC Plan within two weeks of the meeting;
• request consideration of an up-to-date Educational Psychology assessment;
• approach a provider requested by Ms L, as well other more local providers;
• keep in regular contact with Ms L, “at least until educational provision is secured for [X]”.

Analysis

29. The Council has accepted that, after it issued X’s March 2024 EHC Plan, it did not take steps to ensure she received as much as possible of the contents of the provision in her EHC Plan. It said this led to X being on a reduced timetable or absent from school. That was fault.
30. The Council missed chances throughout 2025 to limit the period of delay, in:
• February when it held a review meeting where it identified the need for changes to X’s EHC Plan;
• May, after its complaint response which recommended remedies, including a further review; and
• December when it says it carried out a further review of the EHC Plan.

Those missed opportunities were fault.

31. If a child with an EHC Plan is not in school a council has an ongoing duty to arrange the support guaranteed by the Plan. This might not always be possible. But we would expect a council to seek to provide as much as possible of the contents of a child’s EHC Plan.
32. Here, the February 2025 meeting noted X had regressed in the period after the EHC Plan. More likely than not, that continued into 2025, after her return to school. That is because the February 2025 review of X’s EHC Plan recommended changes which the Council did not complete. But the Council has not produced any records of seeking to implement any of X’s EHC Plan provision. That was fault.
33. The Council has also accepted fault in its social worker not helping Ms L to appeal the contents of X’s March 2024 EHC Plan. That meant Ms L missed the time limit for appealing. While we cannot now know what the outcome of the appeal would have been. The uncertainty about that is an injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

34. I recommended that, within a month of my final decision, the Council take the following action:
• for X’s missed educational provision, for the over five terms between issuing the EHC Plan in March 2024 until the end of the Autumn 2025 term (just before the Council’s response to my enquiries), make Ms L a symbolic payment of £8000.
• for Ms L’s distress and uncertainty caused by the missed appeal rights and the failure to complete annual reviews and complaint remedies, make her a symbolic payment of £500.
35. I recommend that, within three months of my decision, the Council:
• provide an update to the Ombudsman on its progress with the steps it committed to take (in response to my enquiries) regarding X’s educational provision;
• produce a report detailing any results from the strengthening of capacity within its SEND Service (as detailed in its response to my enquiries). This is in lieu of a service improvement recommendation at this stage. It will provide a record which may inform future Ombudsman investigations.
36. The Council has agreed to my recommendations. It should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice.
38. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman