Summary: The Council was at fault for the failure to review the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Ms X’s child, Y and its failure to provide the educational provision detailed in the Plan causing Y to miss out on education and therapy, and frustration for Ms X. Poor communication and complaint handling by the Council added to Ms X’s frustration. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the missed provision, delay and frustration caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to review her child, Y’s EHC Plan since 2021 and because of this has not provided adequate education, impacting Y’s learning and well-being. Ms X also complained about delay in receiving support from the Council’s Early Help service and said the Council’s communication with her was poor, causing significant frustration and impacting her emotional well-being.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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.
5. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
6. 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)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
8. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
9. 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 s34H(1), as amended)
10. 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

11. Ms X complained to us in July 2025 that the Council had failed to review Y’s EHC Plan since 2021. As I have set out in paragraph 2, complainants are expected to come to us within 12 months of knowing they have cause for complaint. It was open to Ms X to complain to us about these missed reviews sooner, and I see no good reason to go back to 2021 now.
12. I have considered what happened from July 2024, as this is one year prior to Ms X complaining to us, up until October 2025, when the Council issued an amended Final EHC Plan for Y.
13. In her complaint Ms X said Y’s school told her they would apply for Early Help support but it delayed in making the referral, leaving Y without support. I have not considered this part of Ms X’s complaint, as we cannot investigate internal school matters. The Council has also not considered matters relating to Early Help support in its complaint investigations.
14. In subsequent correspondence with us Ms X has raised further concerns about Y’s EHC Plan and the named school. I have not investigated these issues as Ms X has the right of appeal to the Tribunal regarding the special educational provision and the school or placement specified in Y’s EHC Plan.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
16. Mrs X and the organisation 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

Relevant law and guidance

EHC Plan 

17. 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. 

Maintaining the EHC Plan

18. 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)  
19. 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. 

Reviewing EHC Plans

20. 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) 
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. If the child’s parents or the young person disagrees with the decision to cease the EHC Plan, the council must continue to maintain the EHC Plan until the time has passed for bringing an appeal, or when an appeal has been registered, until it is concluded.

Appeal rights

24. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s:

• decision not to carry out an EHC needs assessment or reassessment;
• decision that it is not necessary to issue an EHC Plan following an assessment;
• 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;
• amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan;
• decision not to amend an EHC Plan following a review or reassessment; and
• decision to cease to maintain an EHC Plan.

What happened

25. The following is a summary of key events relevant to this complaint investigation.
26. Ms X’s child, Y, has special educational needs. They have had an EHC Plan in place since 2019 with an updated final EHC Plan issued in July 2021. The Plan said Y needed specialist provision with a suitable sensory environment and named a mainstream primary school which is resourced for pupils with complex communication difficulties.
27. The Plan said:
• Y should get to the setting ten minutes before other children to avoid sensory overload.
• Y should have nine sessions of 45 mins of direct speech and language therapy (SALT) during the academic year, nine hours SALT a year to plan, prepare and write up sessions and an annual SALT reassessment.
• Y should have three sessions of 45 mins of occupational therapy (OT) per term with the OT also to attend an annual review and provide a written report.
28. In October 2021 Y began to attend the school on a part time timetable of three and a half hours per day.
29. There is no evidence of contact between the school and the Council between October 2021 and November 2024. Y did not have their annual review in 2022, 2023 or 2024.
30. In 2024 Y’s school began to express concern they were unable to meet their needs.
31. In November 2024 Ms X attended a meeting at the school in which it advised it could no longer meet Y’s needs. At this meeting the school said it would arrange a SALT and OT assessment.
32. After the meeting, in November 2024, Ms X contacted the Council to request a review.
33. In December 2024 Ms X submitted forms to the Council in line with its EHC Plan review process. She also sent a copy of a letter from a psychiatrist recommending an Educational Psychologist (EP) assessment and SALT assessment.
34. Ms X continued to contact the Council during December and January but received no response.
35. Y had a SALT assessment in December 2024.
36. At the end of February Ms X had an online meeting with a case officer who logged a new draft EHC Plan on the Council’s system.
37. In March 2025 a further review meeting was held at school. Ms X sent a summary of the meeting to the case officer. The school said it sent information to the Council after this meeting. The Council said it did not receive any information.
38. There is evidence to suggest the case officer opened a new draft EHC Plan on the Council’s system in March 2025 but did not progress this any further.
39. In March 2025, Ms X complained to the Council. She said:
• The Council had not reviewed Y’s EHC Plan between 2021 and 2024.
• She had requested a review in November 2024 but none had been arranged.
• The EHC Plan no longer reflected Y’s needs and their school was not able to meet their needs.
• No SALT, OT assessment or EP assessment had been arranged for Y.
• The Council failed to provide full time education for Y as they had attended school on a part time timetable since 2021. Ms X also said she was often asked to take them late or collect them early.
• The Council’s communication with her was poor.
40. Later in March 2025 Ms X contacted the Council again to request an update but received no response.
41. Ms X contacted the Council in April 2025 and was advised her case officer had left the Council.
42. In April 2025 Ms X asked the Council for a response to her complaint and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two.
43. The Council apologised for its delay, said it was not able to tell her when she would receive a response and that she could contact us.
44. Ms X contacted the Council again later in April 2025 to ask for someone to contact her about Y’s EHC Plan and education and, as she had received no response, asked to progress her complaint to stage two.
45. Y had an EP assessment in May 2025.
46. In June 2025 the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. In its response the Council:
• Apologised for the delay in the complaint response.
• Acknowledged there was no correspondence with Ms X or Y’s school between September 2021 and November 2024.
• Said there had been no EHC Plan reviews for Y since 2021.
• Acknowledged Y had received three hours or less learning per day since 2021.
• Apologised that Y’s educational provision had not been recorded or adjusted since 2021.
• Apologised that Y’s EHC Plan had not been maintained as it should have been.
• Acknowledged Y’s EHC Plan was out of date and did not reflect their needs.
• Apologised for the significant delays in its communication with her.
• Said SEND services continued to face demands and staffing issues and the Council was on a journey of improvement.
47. The Council said it would:
• Ask for Y’s EHC Plan to be updated as a priority, including seeking advice from SALT and OT.
• Consider a change of placement for Y with every effort made to secure a suitable place for them in September 2025.
• Use Ms X’s case in its training with council officers to demonstrate the impact of failure to respond to families and the impact on a child’s educational provision.
• Consider its response as a stage two response, allowing Ms X to progress her complaint to LGSCO if she wished
48. The Council offered Ms X a symbolic financial remedy of £3850.
49. In July 2025 the Council told Ms X it had prepared a draft EHC Plan to send out for consultation with schools. Ms X asked the Council not to send the Plan out as it had not been shared with her.
50. When the EHC Plan was shared with her Ms X said it was still outdated and had no current professional assessments.
51. In August 2025 the Council met with Ms X to amend the draft EHC Plan and discuss which schools should be consulted about future educational provision.
52. In October 2025 the Council issued a final amended EHC Plan. The Plan said Y required a new SALT and OT programme. It continued to name Y’s current school as the named school in Section I.
53. In response to our enquiries in March 2026 the Council said:
• The Council did not review or maintain Y’s EHC Plan between 2021 and 2025.
• Y’s school did not send its review paperwork to the Council between 2021 and 2025.
• It became aware Y was on a reduced timetable in school in November 2024 when Ms X made contact.
• It had taken steps to work with Y’s school to strengthen compliance to the statutory process.
• There was evidence of some SALT provision between 2022 and 2025, but no evidence of any OT involvement.
• Communication with Ms X was below its expected standards between November 2024 and July 2025.

Findings

EHC Plan and Review

54. The Council has acknowledged it did not maintain Y’s EHC Plan or carry out reviews between 2021 and 2024. For this complaint I am considering the time period July 2024 to October 2025.
55. Ms X made contact with the Council in November 2024 to request a review. There is no evidence to show the Council completed the review process before it issued a draft amended EHC Plan in July 2025.
56. There is evidence to show the Council issued the draft EHC Plan without consulting with Ms X and the Plan remained significantly out of date.
57. The Council issued an amended Final EHC Plan in October 2025. The delay in completing the review and lack of consultation with Ms X is fault. This caused Ms X significant frustration and delayed her right of appeal.

Provision of education

58. Between July 2024 and October 2025 Y attended school on a part time timetable of three hours per day or less. The reduction in hours may have been appropriate initially and in line with what Y could cope with. However, the Council's failure to oversee this or keep this under review is fault and this means, on balance, that Y has missed out on education. This is fault and caused Y to miss out on education. The Council said it only became aware of this in November 2024, this is because it had not completed the annual reviews.
59. Y’s EHC Plan said they should receive a SALT assessment and direct contact. There is evidence to show they had a SALT assessment in December 2024 and there was some provision of SALT within Y’s school, but it has not been possible to quantify how much.
60. The Plan also said Y should have OT assessment and direct contact. There is no evidence of any assessment or provision between July 2024 and October 2025.
61. The failure to provide SALT and OT as outlined in the EHC Plan is fault and caused Y to miss out on therapy and frustration for Ms X.

Communication and Complaint Handling

62. Between November 2024 and June 2025 Ms X made frequent contact with the Council to request an EHC Plan review and to explain that Y’s school had said they were unable to meet their needs. There is evidence to show she often received no response to her enquiries and that communication from the Council was significantly below its expected standards. This is fault and caused Ms X distress as well as further delay in Y’s EHC Plan review.
63. Ms X made her complaint to the Council in March 2025. The Council’s complaints policy says it should respond within 15 days to stage one complaints or provide updates every two weeks. The Council took 85 days to respond. This is fault and caused further delay and significant frustration to Ms X.
64. In its complaint response the Council offered Ms X a financial remedy of £3850. This payment is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Service Improvements

65. There have been a number of other complaints made about the Council’s Special Educational Needs services. Because of this, the Council has an EHC Needs Assessment Improvement Plan in place with the LGSCO and a wider SEND Partnership Improvement Plan. The Improvement Plan includes actions to address capacity, delay and communication. I have not made any service improvement recommendations as the faults found in this complaint are already being addressed by the Council in the improvement Plans and we continue to monitor these.

Back to top

Agreed Action

66. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise to Ms X for the impact of its failure to review Y’s EHC Plan between July 2024 and October 2025 and for the distress and frustration caused by the Council’s delay, poor communication 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.
2. Pay Ms X the £3850 it has already offered her to remedy the injustice caused to Y from not receiving the provision outlined in their EHC Plan between July 2024 and October 2025 and for the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to her by the Council’s poor communication and complaint handling.
67. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

68. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman