Summary: The Council failed to carry out a timely review of D’s Education, Health and Care Plan when they moved into its area and did not secure the provision set out in the plan. These failings meant D did not receive the educational provision they were entitled to for a prolonged period. The Council has acknowledged fault and offered a financial remedy which is proportionate and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains the Council failed to:
• ensure her child received the provision outlined in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan when they moved into the Council’s area;
• review the EHC Plan in accordance with statutory timescales; and
• respond to her request for a personal budget.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated the period from October 2023 to August 2025. Although this period covers more than 12 months, I am satisfied the claimed injustice is ongoing and it was not reasonable for Miss Y to have complained sooner.
6. I have not investigated events which happened after August 2025 as this is the point Miss Y approached the Ombudsman. This is in line with our Investigation Manual which says where there are ongoing issues we should specify an end date beyond which we will not investigate. This should be no later than the date when the complaint was submitted to us and may well be earlier.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Miss Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
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 found

What should happen

10. Where a child or young person moves to another council, the previous council must transfer the EHC Plan to the new council. This transfer must take place on the day of the move, or within 15 working days of the previous council becoming aware of the move, if later. Once the plan has transferred, the new council becomes responsible for it as if it had issued the plan itself and must secure the special educational provision specified in Section F without delay. The new council must also review the EHC Plan within 12 months of it last being reviewed, or within three months of the date of the transfer, whichever is later. (Regulation 15, Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014)

What happened

11. This section of the decision statement sets out the key events relevant to the complaint. It is not intended to provide a full chronology of everything which happened during the period complained about.
12. Miss Y previously lived in a different council area. I will refer to this as the ‘previous council’.
13. In 2023 the previous council issued an EHC plan for D. This contained a blank Section I with EOTAS [Education Other than at School] provision listed in Section F to be funded by a personal budget.
14. Miss Y moved to Essex in September 2023. I will refer to Essex County Council as ‘the Council’. The previous council issued ‘moving in’ paperwork to the Council on 19 October 2023. The Council accepted responsibility for D’s EHC plan from 20 October 2023.
15. On 20 November 2023 the Council emailed the previous council to say, “we need the EHCP with the correct provision information as we have no idea of [D’s] provision, funding needs and category of need”.
16. The Council emailed Miss Y on 9 January 2024 to discuss the possibility of a package of individual interim provision for 15 hours each week. The officer asked: “would online, or face to face be preferrable”. Miss Y responded to say that: “[D] has a EOTAS package which I sort everything out, so no tuition is needed”.
17. The Council’s multi-agency panel considered D’s case on 16 January. The panel decided not to award an EOTAS package because it said the proposal did not match the contents of Section F in D’s EHC plan.
18. The panel re-considered D’s case on 12 March. It agreed to the EOTAS provision but for a maximum of 15 hours each week. The Council also agreed to make a referral for online mentoring and Speech and Language Therapy (SALT).
19. Miss Y expressed her dissatisfaction with the options proposed by the Council and asked for the provision from the previous council to be continued. On 15 April the Council agreed to reconsider the EOTAS package but said it needed a breakdown of cost and details of the providers.
20. On 24 February 2025 Mis Y emailed the Council to say the funding she had continued to receive from the previous council for a small part of D’s provision had ended and that D was not receiving any provision.
21. D did not receive any of their Section F provision from the Council and Miss Y complained. In response to her complaint, the Council apologised for not providing an appropriate level of communication. The Council said there had been delay when obtaining the relevant paperwork from the previous council regarding D’s EOTAS provision. To discuss appropriate provision for D, the Council agreed to hold an annual review on 26 August.
22. The review went ahead as planned. This was two and a half years after the last review which took place with the previous council in March 2023. D was now in school year ten.
23. The Council decided that it was necessary to amend D’s EHC plan but noted that it needed all professional reports, including one from the Educational Psychologist (EP) commissioned by the Council to provide an updated view about D’s needs.
24. Dissatisfied with the Council’s actions, Miss Y complained to the LGSCO.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Miss Y and D?

25. When D moved into its area in October 2023, the Council had a duty under the Children and Families Act 2014 to secure equivalent special educational provision as set out in D’s existing EHC plan. However, the evidence shows the Council did not put the required provision in place promptly, which meant there was a significant period when D was not receiving the provision they were entitled to.
26. Furthermore, the Council did not carry out a timely annual review of D’s EHC plan, as required by Regulation 20 of the SEND Regulations 2014, further delaying consideration of whether their provision remained appropriate. The Council has since acknowledged this fault and accepts it caused injustice to both Miss Y and D. To remedy that injustice, the Council proposed a total financial remedy of £8,500 to recognise the resulting loss of education.
27. While I recognise the period of fault resulted in a significant loss of educational provision for D, I consider the Council’s proposed payment of £8,500 is proportionate to that loss. In reaching this view, I have applied the Ombudsman’s guidance of around £2,000 per term for a complete loss of provision.
28. However, I do not consider D experienced a complete loss throughout the period. From October 2023, D continued to receive some provision funded by the previous council, albeit only on a very limited basis. In addition, from January 2024 the Council made an offer of interim provision for 15 hours per week which remained available for D throughout the period complained about.
29. While I accept this offer was not equivalent to the provision specified in Section F, I consider it was a meaningful level of provision which Miss Y chose to decline. I have therefore taken both the ongoing availability of provision, and the partial provision D was receiving into account in reducing the overall rate of financial remedy applied for this period.
30. Although D was not receiving any provision from February 2025 onwards, the Council had still made provision available during this period which could have been taken up. Because of this, I do not consider this period amounts to a complete loss of education. Instead, I have treated the loss as ongoing but reduced to reflect that some provision was available.
31. Overall, I am satisfied that the £8,500 proposed by the Council recognises the length of time D missed out on education, while also considering factors which reduced the extent of that loss.

Back to top

Action

32. For a personal remedy, the Council will provide evidence to show it has paid the proposed £8,500 to Miss Y. This is a symbolic payment in recognition of the provision which D missed between October 2023 and August 2025 and the associated distress caused to both Miss Y and D.
33. I have not recommended a service improvement in this case. While I have identified fault in the Council’s delay in carrying out the annual review and securing D’s provision, these issues form part of wider systemic concerns in the Council’s SEND service which it has already recognised.
34. The Council has set out actions to address these issues through its ‘SEND Additional Assistance Plan’, including improving the timeliness of statutory processes and reducing delays across the service. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that recommending a further service improvement in this case would duplicate work the Council is already undertaking.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to complete the remedial actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman