Summary: Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing notices after two annual review meetings and delayed issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan for her son. Based on current evidence, the Council accepts that it did not meet the statutory timescales for the EHC Plan reviews and that this caused distress and anxiety. A symbolic payment to recognise this is proposed.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing notices after annual review meetings and delayed issuing the final EHC Plan.
2. Ms X says this delayed the process of transitioning her son to post 16 education and caused distress.

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. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council have 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 

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. 

Reviewing EHC Plans

9. 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) 
10. 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.
11. 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.

Post-16 – review, provision and naming placement deadline  

12. For young people moving from secondary school to a post-16 institution or apprenticeship, the council must review and amend the EHC Plan – including specifying the post-16 provision and naming the institution – by 31 March in the calendar year of the transfer.  

Key facts

13. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
14. Ms X’s son, Z, has an EHC Plan. An annual review meeting was held on 3 June 2024 and the Council received the paperwork from Z’s school on 7 June. Ms X says she did not receive a notice within four weeks indicating whether the Council intended to maintain, amend or cease the plan. There is nothing to suggest the Council took any action.
15. On 26 November 2024 a further review meeting took place. This was the review to plan for Z’s transition to post 16 education in September 2025. The Council received the paperwork from the school in respect of this review on 3 December. It then contacted the school on 16 January seeking further information.
16. Ms X received a notice to amend dated 23 January. She then made a formal complaint on 2 April complaining of delay, failure to meet the statutory timescales in respect of the two review meetings and a failure to issue a final EHC Plan. She said that despite two reviews taking place, Z still did not have a revised EHC Plan and his post-16 placement was unnamed. She was concerned that applications for post-16 travel assistance were open but she was unable to apply without confirmation of Z’s placement.
17. The Council responded on 11 April apologising for the severe delay in processing Z’s annual reviews. It said it was dealing with a high number of key stage transfer annual reviews which had presented a challenge to process them on time. It acknowledged the distress caused to both her and Z. It said the amendment notice took account of both annual reviews and the information was combined but accepted it had not addressed the issue of outdated or inappropriate provisions post-16.
18. It accepted the formal consultation process for Z’s post-16 education was late and apologised. It also acknowledged the anxiety that not having a final EHC Plan naming a provider for September 2025. It said that despite Z receiving a conditional offer letter from his preferred post-16 provider, it had now stated it was unable to meet his needs and so could not offer a place. It said it could commission some elements of Z’s provision directly but there are some elements that were either school based or not appropriate for the type of post-16 setting applied for. It said it was unable to change these elements without evidence or unless directed to do so.
19. The Council consulted with alternative post-16 providers seeking a placement for Z. Ms X said these were not suitable options for Z. She said the uncertainty was having a negative impact on Z at the time he was sitting exams and that this is why she applied early and secured the conditional offer. In June, there was the possibility of a different level course for Z with an amended EHC Plan. It confirmed this with Ms X saying it will name the preferred setting on a different level course and issue the EHC Plan and assist with transition planning and a transport application.
20. The final EHC Plan was issued on 14 August. Z started at his preferred setting in September 2025 and on the same course as he was offered the conditional place. Ms X says that she had to transport Z herself for the first few weeks but that transport was then properly arranged.

Analysis

21. There are statutory timescales for completing annual reviews as described at paragraphs 9 to 11 above. An annual review meeting was held for Z on 3 June 2024. The Council failed to provide a notice within four weeks saying whether it intended to amend, maintain or cease the plan. This is fault. A final plan should be issued within 12 weeks of the annual review meeting. The Council failed to do this which is fault.
22. Councils are required to complete an annual review by 31 March in the year the student moves to post-16 education. The annual review process for Z therefore started in November 2024 so that it could be completed by the end of March. The Council missed the four week timescale for sending the notice indicating it intended to amend the EHC Plan. This is fault. It failed to issue the final amended EHC Plan by the statutory timescale of 31 March, not actually issuing it until 14 August. This is fault.
23. The Council has accepted it failed to meet the statutory timescales and that it delayed in sending consultations to post-16 providers. It acknowledged the distress and anxiety this caused and apologised. I do not consider this is a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Ms X and Z and so I am recommending a symbolic payment to recognise the impact. I have taken account of the fact that eventually the Council worked with Ms X and ensured Z was able to study his preferred course.

Back to top

Action

24. To remedy the injustice caused as a result of the fault identified above, the Council should, within one month of my final decision take the following action:
• Make a symbolic payment of £300 to recognise the anxiety and distress experienced by Ms X and Z; and
• Provide details of the action already taken or that it intends to take to ensure it has suitable staff provision to meet statutory timescales for annual reviews including post-16 transition reviews.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

26. I intend to complete my investigation as a suitable remedy is proposed.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman