Summary: The Council was at fault. It did not issue Mrs X’s child, Y’s, decision letter or Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales after Y’s annual review. This caused Mrs X distress, uncertainty and delayed her appeal rights to the Tribunal. The Council had already offered to pay Mrs X a suitable symbolic payment before Mrs X came to us. It has repeated that offer. The Council has already put in place an action plan to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed issuing her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following an annual review in late February 2025. Mrs X also complained about poor Council communication. Mrs X said Y’s final amended EHC Plan had still not been issued which had resulted in distress, frustration and avoidable time and trouble chasing the Council. She said Y did not have a confirmed school place for the new academic year in September 2025 and could not be certain Y would receive the correct provision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
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 SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
5. 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)
6. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. Mrs X complained about events starting in late February 2025. I have investigated from late February 2025 when Y’s school held their annual review to early December 2025 when the Council issued Y’s Final EHC Plan and Mrs X had appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal.
8. This investigation does not consider any issues with Council communication with Mrs X, Y’s school placement from September 2025 or any lost provision from September 2025. Mrs X did not raise any communication concerns or placement suitability or lost provision concerns when she complained to the Council in mid-April 2025. As explained in paragraph three above the Council should normally have an opportunity to respond to any communication, placement and lost provision concerns before we look at them. If Mrs X still has concerns about these issues she should raise them as a new complaint with the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered:
• the information Mrs X provided about her complaint;
• the information the Council provided;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies, published on our website.
10. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

11. 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. Section F sets out the educational provision needed by the child or young person and Section I sets out the name and/or type of school.
12. There is a right of appeal to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Tribunal against a decision not to assess, issue or amend an EHC Plan or about the content of the final EHC Plan. Parents must consider mediation before deciding to appeal. An appeal right is only engaged once a decision not to assess, issue or amend a plan has been made and sent to the parent or a final EHC Plan has been issued.

Reviewing EHC Plans

13. 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 take place. The process is only complete when the council issues a decision about the review.
14. Councils can delegate the arrangements for an annual review meeting to a child’s school, but the council retains responsibility for ensuring the review is conducted within the statutory timescales.
15. Within four weeks of a review meeting, the council must notify the child’s parent of its decision to maintain, amend or discontinue the EHC Plan. Once the decision is issued, the review is complete. (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. The Council should issue an amended plan within eight weeks of its notice to the parties that it proposes to amend the plan.

What happened

17. Y has special educational needs including Autism, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD) and dyslexia. Y has an EHC Plan and is of secondary school age. Y attended an independent school, School 1.
18. In late February 2025 School 1 held Y’s annual review. In late March 2025 School 1 sent the Council Y’s annual review paperwork.
19. In mid-April 2025 Y’s mother, Mrs X, complained to the Council. She said Y’s annual review took place in late February 2025 and the Council was not in line with the EHC Plan legal timeframes. She asked for Y’s draft Plan within 10 days and asked for a specific Council case worker, Officer 1.
20. In late May 2025 the Council responded to Mrs X’s stage one complaint. It apologised for not sending Mrs X, Y’s, annual review decision or draft amended EHC Plan within the required timescales. It offered a £300 remedy payment for the delay and a £200 remedy payment for the distress and uncertainty caused, a total of £500. It said a Council caseworker Officer 2 was reviewing Y’s documentation and would try to issue Y’s EHC Plan decision letter and draft amended EHC Plan within 10 working days. It would then be finalised as soon as possible. It gave Mrs X Officer 1 and Officer 2’s contact details.
21. Three days later the Council sent Mrs X, Y’s draft amended EHC Plan and sent Mrs X its decision letter to amend Y’s EHC Plan.
22. Mrs X remained unhappy and six days later she escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council complaints process. The Council acknowledged Mrs X’s escalation email and said it would respond by early June 2025.
23. In early June 2025 the Council emailed Mrs X. It said Y’s draft EHC Plan was sent to her in late May 2025 which was within 10 days of the Council’s stage one response. It said it would not escalate her complaint to stage two of its complaints process and if she wanted amendments to Y’s draft plan, she should contact Officer 2 so they could be addressed before the Plan was finalised. It gave Mrs X our contact details if she remained unhappy.
24. Mrs X remained unhappy and contacted us.
25. The Council issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan in early December 2025.

My findings

Annual review delays

26. We expect councils to follow statutory timescales set out in law, Regulations and Code. We are likely to find fault where there are significant breaches of those timescales.
27. School 1 held Y’s annual review in late February 2025. To be in line with the statutory guidance the Council should have told Mrs X if it intended to maintain, amend or discontinue Y’s EHC Plan within four weeks of the annual review, by late March 2025. The Council said it did not receive the annual review paperwork from School 1 until late March 2025, but it should have chased this with School 1. The evidence shows the Council issued its decision letter to amend Y’s EHC Plan when it sent Mrs X the first version of Y’s draft amended Plan in late May 2025. This was a delay of approximately eight weeks and was fault causing Mrs X distress and uncertainty.
28. To be in line with the statutory guidance the Council should have issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan by late May 2025. The Council issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan in early December 2025. This was a delay of approximately six and a half months and was fault causing Mrs X continuing distress and uncertainty. The fault also delayed Mrs X’s appeal rights to the special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Tribunal.
29. In the Council’s stage one response to Mrs X, the Council has already apologised for the delays, distress and uncertainty caused to her. The Council also offered Mrs X a total remedy of £500. This remedy is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and remedied the injustice caused to Mrs X. Therefore, I have not recommended a higher payment. In response to my enquiries, the Council agreed to offer Mrs X the £500 symbolic payment again for one month from the date of this final decision, should she wish to accept it.

Service improvements

30. The Ombudsman has already made recommendations to prevent future injustice from similar fault to this Council on similar cases. The Council has agreed to review its procedures for annual reviews to ensure they comply with the relevant legislation and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the action plan it has in place to address how it will meet statutory timescales for annual reviews. On this basis no further recommendations were needed.

Back to top

Decision

31. I have completed my investigation finding fault causing injustice. The Council has already offered a suitable remedy and put in place an action plan to improve its service.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman