Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delay to review her son’s (Y) Education Health and Care Plan after she had moved to the Council’s area in 2024. We found fault with the Council. This fault caused injustice to Miss X. The Council has offered suitable remedies.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council’s delay to review her son’s (Y) Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after she moved to the Council’s area in 2024.
2. Miss X says the delay meant she could not ask for changes to Y’s EHC Plan which were necessary because of Y’s medical diagnosis.
3. In the part of this decision describing what happened, when referring to the council against which Miss X brought her complaint, I call it ‘Council 2’ to distinguish it from Miss X’s previous council.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
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 SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. 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.
8. 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)
9. 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

10. I have not investigated any amendments to Sections B, F and I of Y’s EHC Plan made after a review of this plan in summer 2025. This is because in November 2025 Miss X appealed to the SEND Tribunal. We cannot investigate anything that is or could be the subject of an appeal.
11. I have not investigated whether Council 2 should have included Y’s new medical diagnosis in his EHC Plan. This is because as part of her appeal Miss X could ask for Tribunal recommendations for Sections C and G of Y’s EHC Plan. In her correspondence to Council 2 Miss X suggested that Council 2 was responsible for funding provision to address Y’s needs stemming from the medical diagnosis. In view of the dispute between Miss X and Council 2, it is for the SEND Tribunal to decide if Y’s EHC Plan should be amended by adding his new medical diagnosis and if so, in which section of the EHC Plan it should be included.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and Council 2 as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Miss X and the Council 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

Law and guidance

EHC Plan

14. A child with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This 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 education or name a different school. Only the tribunal can do this.

EHC Plan review

15. 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 discontinue 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) 
16. 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.
17. When the child with EHC Plan moves to a different council, the ‘new’ council must review the EHC Plan before the period of 12 months beginning with the date of the last EHC Plan or its review or within three months from the date of the transfer, whichever is later. (Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 Regulation 15(5)) 

Appeal to the SEND Tribunal

18. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against:
• the description of a child or young person’s SEN (Section B), the special educational provision specified (Section F), the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified (Section I);
• an amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan;
• a decision not to amend an EHC Plan following a review or reassessment.
19. When deciding an appeal the SEND Tribunal has the power to recommend that health care needs which relate to the child’s special educational needs (Section C) and health care provision (Section G) are specified in the EHC Plan or should be amended. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability (First-tier Tribunal Recommendations Power) Regulations 2017, Regulation 4 and 5)

What happened

20. In January 2024 a council (Council 1), in which area Miss X lived at the time, carried out an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan. The family moved at the end of May 2024. The new council (Council 2) adopted Y’s EHC Plan to its format at the end of April 2025.
21. In 2024 and 2025 Miss X contacted Council 2 a few times to ask for a review of Y’s EHC Plan. In April 2025 there was some correspondence about Y’s EHC Plan review between Council 2 and Miss X.
22. At the end of June 2025 Miss X complained.
23. Council 2 responded at the beginning of July 2025, recognising its delay in reviewing Y’s EHC Plan. Council 2 apologised and offered Miss X a payment of £600.
24. In mid-July Miss X told Council 2 she was not happy with the payment offered as it was lower than in her previous case.
25. Council 2 held an annual review meeting for Y at the end of July 2025.
26. Following the review, Council 2 issued Y’s final EHC Plan in mid-October 2025. At the end of November Miss X appealed to the SEND Tribunal.

Analysis

27. Council 2 should have reviewed Y’s EHC Plan by January 2025. It arranged a review meeting for Y’s plan at the end of July 2025. The delay of six months to carry out a review of Y’s EHC Plan is fault.
28. The main injustice claimed by Miss X was the lack of opportunity to include Y’s medical diagnosis, which he had received in September 2024, in Y’s EHC Plan. After reviewing Y’s EHC Plan in summer 2025 Council 2 refused, however, to include this diagnosis in Y’s final amended plan issued in October 2025. It is likely that even if an annual review had taken place without delay, the medical diagnosis would not have been included in Y’s plan.
29. As explained in paragraph 11 I have not investigated merits of Council 2’s decision as this is a matter which the SEND Tribunal can resolve.
30. As there were no major amendments to Y’s EHC Plan following its review in 2025, Council 2’s delays did not cause him significant injustice.
31. Council 2’s fault caused injustice to Miss Y as she was distressed by Council 2’s failure to comply with the statutory timescales for annual reviews. She spent time communicating with Council 2 about the review. She also had to wait longer to challenge Council 2’s position on the content of Y’s EHC Plan.
32. An apology and a payment of £600 offered by Council 2 are suitable remedies to recognise Miss X’s injustice caused by Council 2’s delay in reviewing Y’s EHC Plan.

Back to top

Action

33. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council within four weeks of the final decision pay Miss X £600 it has offered in its response to Miss X’s complaint. The Council should provide us with evidence it has done this.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has offered suitable remedies for Miss X’s injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman