Summary: Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. She also complained about how the Council handled her complaint. We find the Council was at fault for its delays in finalising Miss X’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for its delays in responding to Miss X’s complaint. These faults caused Miss X frustration and uncertainty. The Council apologised to Miss X, confirmed it had implemented a service improvement and offered £150. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to make a higher payment to reflect Miss X’s injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council delayed issuing her son’s (Y) Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after the Tribunal issued a consent order. She also says the Council delayed responding to her complaint, it failed to telephone her to understand her complaint and the department she was complaining about responded to her complaint.
2. Miss X says the matter has had a detrimental impact on her and Y.

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
6. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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

Special educational needs

9. 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. 

Timescales after the Tribunal’s decision

10. Where a council concedes and agrees to issue an EHC Plan (after previously refusing to) it must:

• Issue a draft EHC Plan within 5 weeks of the consent order, and
• Send a copy of the finalised EHC Plan within 11 weeks of the consent order.

(Regulation 44 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014)

What happened

11. Y has special educational needs. Miss X applied for the Council to complete to an assessment of Y’s EHC needs. The Council completed the assessment and decided not to issue Y with an EHC Plan. Miss X appealed to the Tribunal.
12. The Council conceded and agreed to issue Y with an EHC Plan. The Tribunal issued a consent order on 15 November 2024.
13. Miss X complained to the Council in mid-January 2025 about its delays in finalising Y’s EHC Plan.
14. The Council issued Y’s draft EHC Plan the following week. Miss X provided her comments.
15. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in mid-March. It apologised for the delays. It said reduced staffing levels had impacted the timeliness of new draft EHC Plans. It said it would provide a final Plan once it had reviewed Miss X’s amendments and identified a placement to name in section I of the Plan.
16. Miss X contacted the Council and asked to refer her complaint to stage two in April. The Council emailed her and said it had forwarded her complaint to a senior manager to review.
17. Miss X emailed the Council and asked it to confirm what it understood her complaint to be. The Council responded and said following her telephone call with a complaints officer, it understood her complaint was about its failures to consider her amendments to Y’s EHC Plan. It asked her to let it know if she had anything to add. It also said it could ask for someone in the education department to give her a call.
18. Miss X responded in early May. She said she had already spent a lot of time discussing matters with the education department. She said she wanted the education department to act rather than let things drift. She also said she was unhappy the original complaint was investigated by the same department that she had complained about.
19. The Council issued Y’s EHC Plan on 12 May and left the name of the placement blank. Miss Y appealed to the Tribunal about the content of Y’s EHC Plan. She said section F of the Plan was not specific for Y’s needs. She also said she wanted Education, Otherwise Than at School (EOTAS) rather than a specific placement for Y.
20. The Council issued Y with an amended EHC Plan in June. It named a placement in section I.
21. The Council issued its final response to Miss X’s complaint in late July. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said it was standard practice for stage one complaints to be considered by a manager within the service complained about. It also said its delays in issuing Y’s final EHC Plan, even after she complained, were unacceptable. The delay impacted on her ability to exercise her right to appeal to the Tribunal. It had now recruited more staff, and a training programme was ongoing. It also said it had reviewed and revised its internal process about meeting statutory timescales. It offered Miss X £150 to reflect the delays in responding to her stage two complaint and issuing Y’s EHC Plan.

Back to top

Analysis

22. The Council was at fault for its significant delays in finalising Y’s EHC Plan. It should have issued the final Plan by 31 January 2025. However, it did not issue it until 12 May 2025. This delay frustrated Miss X’s appeal rights to the Tribunal and caused her uncertainty about Y’s education.
23. The Council delayed responding to Miss X’s complaints at stage one and at stage two. It should have responded at stage one within 20 working days. The Council missed this deadline by nearly five weeks. It should have responded at stage two within 10 working days. It missed this deadline by over 10 weeks. The Council’s delays caused Miss X further frustration.
24. Miss X is unhappy the Council did not have a telephone call with her to understand her complaint. However, the Council did speak to her about her complaint. Miss X asked for clarification about the complaint issues after the call. The Council provided this. The complaints officer also said Miss X could contact her by telephone to discuss the complaint, or she could ask for an officer from the education department to call. Miss X responded and said she wanted the education department to progress matters.
25. It is standard practice for councils to assign the manager of the department that is being complained about to respond to the complaint. They have the knowledge required to respond to the issues. The manager upheld all of Miss X’s complaint and so I do not consider they were biased. I do not find fault.
26. The Council apologised to Miss X for its delays in responding to her complaint and for its delays in finalising Y’s EHC Plan. It also offered £150 and confirmed it had put in place service improvements to prevent a recurrence of the fault.
27. I welcome the Council’s apologies and its service improvements. However, I do not consider £150 is sufficient to remedy Miss X’s injustice. I recommend a higher payment.

Back to top

Action

28. By 27 March 2026 the Council has agreed to pay Miss X £250 to reflect the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman