Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not complete an interim review of her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. She said this impacted her child’s education and emotional wellbeing. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. We are satisfied the Council’s actions have remedied the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her child, Y’s, education. Specifically, she complains the Council:

1. Named an unsuitable placement in the Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan;
2. Did not complete an early review of the EHC Plan; and
3. Did not properly consider her request for a personal budget.

2. Mrs X says this impacted Y’s education and emotional wellbeing. She says it has also caused avoidable distress and financial strain to her and her wider family.

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 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. 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.
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. 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)
8. 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.
9. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about a child’s needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the tribunal or the council can do this.  As I have explained above, we do not normally investigate if it was reasonable for a complainant to use their right to review to a Tribunal. I consider it was reasonable for Mrs X to use her right of appeal to Tribunal and so I have not investigated part a of the complaint.
11. Mrs X has not yet brought her complaint about its decision regarding her personal budget request to the Council. As I have explained above, we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless the Council has had the opportunity to investigate and reply. Therefore, I have not investigated part c of the complaint.
12. For this reason, I have only investigated part b of the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
15. 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 found

What should have happened

Interim review (part b of the complaint)

16. 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. 
17. 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. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176)
18. Councils should also consider a request for an interim review of the EHC Plan when new circumstances arise.

What happened

19. In spring 2024, the Council issued Y’s finalised EHC Plan and provided Mrs X with her right of appeal. Y had limited engagement with the provision detailed in the Plan.
20. Shortly afterwards, Mrs X requested an interim review of the EHC Plan because Y’s circumstances had changed. The Council did not consider her request.
21. Mrs X made a formal complaint.
22. The Council issued another finalised EHC Plan and provided Mrs X with her right to appeal to Tribunal. The Plan named the same educational placement and Y’s engagement remained limited.
23. In early 2025, Mrs X made another request for an emergency review. The Council considered her request. Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two and appealed to the Tribunal.
24. In summer, the Council issued its second stage complaint response. It told Mrs X it considered Y was suitable for specialist provision which was not available in the named placement. It accepted it failed to respond to Mrs X’s first request for an interim review. It apologised and offered her a financial remedy. If offered £500 to remedy the unnecessary uncertainty regarding any impact on Y’s educational provision, and an additional £500 to remedy the avoidable anxiety and frustration caused by its delay responding to her request for an interim review.

Analysis

25. The Council accepts it did not respond to Mrs X’s first request for an interim review. This is fault. I cannot make a finding, even on a balance of probabilities, about whether the delay caused Y to miss educational provision they would have otherwise accessed. This is because Y’s engagement with the education detailed in the EHC Plan was limited. However, the Council told Mrs X in its second stage complaint response it considered Y’s needs could be met in a specialist provision. I do consider the fault caused avoidable uncertainty to Mrs X about whether its delay resulted in a loss of provision for Y. The Council has apologised and offered £500 to remedy this injustice. This remedy is at the upper end of our published guidance on remedies and therefore I am satisfied this remedy is appropriate to the level of injustice caused.
26. I consider its delay considering Mrs X’s first request for an interim review also caused Mrs X avoidable and unnecessary uncertainty and frustration. The Council offered Mrs X £500 to remedy the unnecessary anxiety and frustration caused by the delay. This amount is also at the upper end of our guidance on remedies and so I am satisfied this sufficiently remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Decision

27. I find fault causing injustice. I am satisfied actions by the Council has remedied the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman