Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan, including a delayed Annual Review. We found avoidable delay by the Council in completing the Annual Review, which caused Mr X avoidable distress. The Council had apologised to Mr X but to suitably address the injustice to Mr X, the Council also agreed to increase its offer of a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s handling of his child’s (C) special educational needs (SEN) because:

• it delayed the annual review of C’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan);
• the delayed annual review of C’s EHC Plan lacked genuine parental agreement;
• it frequently changed the officer dealing with C’s SEN and EHC Plan;
• it failed to provide up to date information about C’s SEN & EHC Plan when consulting schools about a placement; and
• it (temporarily) removed C’s case from its SEN Referrals and Placements Panel (SENRAP).

2. Mr X said what happened seriously disrupted C’s education. It also substantially and adversely affected C’s mental health and wellbeing and caused significant harm and distress for all the family. Mr X wanted the Council to provide C with a suitable educational placement. Mr X also sought compensation for his family’s distress, time and trouble.

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. If there was no fault in how the council made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. Where we find fault we must also consider whether that 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)
5. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end, an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. We do not start or continue an investigation if, for example, we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the council; or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome; or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended) 

6. 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)
7. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (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. 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.
10. If we are satisfied with a council’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)
11. 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

12. Mr X complained to us about five months after the Council had completed an annual review of C’s EHC Plan in early 2025. Mr X’s complaint included the Council’s failure to carry out an Annual Review of C’s EHC Plan for over two years before that completed in 2025. A complaint about the Council’s failure to complete an Annual Review over two years was therefore a late complaint (see paragraph 6 of this statement).
13. At the start of the 12 months before Mr X complained to us, the Council had yet to start the Annual Review of C’s EHC Plan that it completed in early 2025. I could therefore investigate the continuing failure to review C’s EHC Plan during those 12 months. I also considered if I should exercise my discretion and investigate back beyond those 12 months. However, I found no good reason to do so. My investigation into the five issues (see paragraph 1) raised by Mr X’s complaint therefore considered events from late July 2024, the end of the 2023 to 2024 academic year. The end date for my investigation was our receipt of Mr X’s complaint in late July 2025. I took account of events both before July 2024 and after July 2025 as necessary to provide context for the complaint I investigated.
14. Mr X’s complaint also included issues related to C’s educational placement. Mr X had, and used, his right to appeal to the Tribunal about the school named in C’s 2025 EHC Plan. I therefore could not investigate any complaint about C’s placement (see paragraphs 7 and 8).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council. I also considered relevant law, policy and guidance, including the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 (the SEND Regulations). I also considered the Government’s statutory guidance, the ‘special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (the Code). I gave Mr X and the Council an opportunity to comment on my draft decision and considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background

16. A young person with SEN may have an EHC Plan. This document sets out the young person’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections, including those about a child’s educational needs, their educational provision, and the name of their educational placement.
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. The review procedure is complete when the council issues its decision to amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan.

Summary of what happened

18. C had an EHC Plan that, in early 2023, included the name of a mainstream school as C’s educational placement. Mr X did not appeal, including against the named school, to the Tribunal against C’s 2023 EHC Plan.
19. In late 2023, C’s parents, including Mr X, removed C from the school named in the EHC Plan. C returned to the school about five months later. The Council started to consider a specialist school placement for C. After about seven months, in late 2024, the Council arranged a meeting to carry out an Annual Review of C’s EHC Plan. Around the time of the proposed meeting, the Council’s SENRAP decided not to further consider C’s case. (SENRAP considers cases where a child or young person may need a specialist school placement as demand for such places exceeds their availability.)
20. C’s parents asked for a change to the proposed Annual Review meeting date. The Council told Mr X the specialist schools it had consulted had not offered C a place and this could be discussed at the meeting. Near the end of 2024, the rearranged Annual Review meeting took place with Mr X attending.
21. In early 2025 and before completion of the Annual Review, the Council held a further, emergency, meeting, as C was not attending the mainstream school. Both C’s parents attended the meeting, which considered C’s absence from school and worsening health and wellbeing. The meeting also raised reconsulting with specialist schools about a placement for C. (Mr X said both C’s mainstream school and the Council offered the family options for securing suitable education for C while C was out of school, and to help with C’s return to school.)
22. The Council completed the Annual Review, issuing a final amended EHC Plan that continued to name the mainstream school as a suitable placement for C. Mr X appealed to the Tribunal against the Council naming the mainstream school in C’s EHC Plan.
23. Meanwhile, C’s case was reinstated for consideration by SENRAP. Mr X had also complained to the Council about its handling of C’s EHC Plan. (The five bullet points in paragraph 1 summarise Mr X’s main concerns.)
24. In summary, the Council responded to the complaint apologising for any misunderstanding and inconvenience arising from the rearranged Annual Review meeting in late 2024. The Council also apologised for the disruption and communication issues caused by changes to C’s caseworker. The Council said this was in part outside its control as officers were away on sick leave or left its employment. It also had to consider wider service needs when allocating work to available officers. To improve communication and case handling, the Council gave Mr X contact details for a senior officer who would oversee C’s case.
25. The Council also apologised for its failure to complete an Annual Review of C’s EHC Plan for two years. The Council said it had given schools up to date information about C’s SEN when consulting on a placement during the recent Annual Review. Its SENRAP considered cases of greatest need for a specialist rather than a mainstream school placement. In 2024, no specialist school had offered C a place. SENRAP had further considered C’s case and the possibility of a specialist placement from Spring 2025. (Through Spring and into early Summer 2025, the Council continued to consult schools about a placement for C.) The Council also offered Mr X £250 in recognition of the distress caused by its delay in reviewing C’s EHC Plan.
26. Mr X found the Council’s apology and offer of £250 inadequate given the impact of events on C’s education. Mr X told the Council he urgently wanted a suitable placement for C. After further correspondence with the Council, Mr X brought his complaint to us.
27. After Mr X complained and before the Tribunal heard his appeal, the Council secured a specialist school placement for C.

Consideration

Introduction

28. We are not an appeal body and our role is not to ask whether a council could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how a council made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
29. As a publicly funded body, we must be careful how we use our resources. We conduct proportionate investigations; completing them when we consider we have enough evidence to make a sound decision. This means we do not try to answer or address every question and issue a complainant may have about what a council did or did not do. Here, I carefully considered all the information provided by both Mr X and the Council. This decision statement does not, and does not need to, address every point and question raised in the complaint papers. Rather, my focus was on the issues summarised in the five bullet points set out in paragraph 1 of this statement.

The delayed Annual Review

30. The Annual Review of C’s 2023 EHC Plan should have been completed by early 2024. Instead the Annual Review procedure started in late 2024 and was completed in early 2025. I found avoidable delay here, which was fault. The Council had accepted it delayed reviewing C’s EHC Plan in responding to Mr X’s complaint. The Council had also apologised to Mr X and offered financial redress. It had therefore recognised its delay had caused injustice. I agreed there was injustice here. So a key issue for me was whether the Council had suitably put right that injustice.
31. A key outcome sought by Mr X was a suitable educational placement for C. It was for the Council, or the Tribunal on appeal, to decide what educational placement was set out in C’s EHC Plan. However, completion of the Annual Review was needed to trigger Mr X’s appeal rights if he considered the school named by the Council in C’s reviewed EHC Plan was unsuitable. The delayed Annual Review therefore avoidably delayed, and so denied, Mr X his Tribunal appeal rights for about a year, including about seven months after July 2024. I found the Council’s apology and offer of £250 did not suitably address the injustice caused by the Council’s avoidable delay in reviewing C’s EHC Plan.

Parental involvement in the Annual Review

32. There Annual Review meeting held in late 2024 did not include both C’s parents. The Council had apologised for what happened. It had also committed to ensuring both parents took part in future meetings. The Council had therefore recognised there was fault causing injustice here. I agreed there was fault. Before the 2024 Annual Review was completed a further meeting, with both parents, took place in early 2025. I found the Council’s complaint responses and its actions after the 2024 meeting had already suitably put right the injustice caused by that fault.

Frequently changing caseworkers

33. The Council had accepted there were frequent changes to C’s caseworker. As it had explained, caseworkers may become ill and may leave its employment, which will directly affect their allocated cases and delivery of the Council’s wider EHC Plan services. While I recognised changing the caseworker for C’s EHC Plan would likely be frustrating for C’s parents, I found no fault by the Council. I also recognised the Council had sought to provide continuity by appointing a senior officer to oversee C’s case.

Failure to provide up to date information when consulting schools

34. I did not investigate events before late July 2024 (see paragraph 13), when the Council might have been consulting schools using information that dated back to 2023. However, in late 2024 and during the Annual Review that was completed in early 2025, the evidence showed the Council provided up to date information about C’s educational needs when consulting schools about a placement. I therefore found no fault here by the Council.

Removal of C’s case from the Council’s SENRAP

There was no dispute C’s case was temporarily removed from SENRAP for about three months. I recognised Mr X’s dissatisfaction with that temporary removal. However, it was for the Council to decide which cases had greatest need, at any given time, for a specialist school place. I had no role in arbitrating on any differing views held by Mr X and the Council about whether C’s case should have been permanently before SENRAP. And further investigation to secure answers to Mr X’s questions about why C’s case had been temporarily removed would not change what had happened. Neither would it likely add to the Council’s earlier consideration of and responses to this part of Mr X’s complaint. Overall, I did not find further investigation of this issue justified.

Back to top

Action

35. Having found fault causing injustice (see paragraphs 30 and 31), I considered our guidance on remedies. The Council had completed an Annual Review in early 2025 (see paragraph 22). It had therefore taken corrective action on the delayed Annual Review before Mr X complained. The Council had also apologised for its avoidable delay in completing that Annual Review when it responded to Mr X’s complaint (see paragraph 25). However, to provide a proportionate, appropriate and reasonable remedy, I recommended the Council increase the symbolic payment it offered Mr X.
36. The Council agreed to make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mr X within 30 working days of this decision statement. The payment is to recognise Mr X’s avoidable distress, including the delay to his Tribunal appeal rights, caused by the Council’s avoidable delay in completing an Annual Review of C’s EHC Plan after February 2023.
37. The Council also agreed to provide us with evidence it complied with the action set out at paragraph 36.

Back to top

Decision

38. I found fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman