Summary: Mr X complained about the way the Council dealt with his child, Z’s special educational needs and educational provision. We have found fault by the Council causing injustice, in failing to: complete the annual review of Z’s Education Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales; properly consider its duty to make alternative provision for Z; and its communication failures. The Council has agreed to remedy this injustice by: apologising; making payments to recognise the impact of the missed education and upset caused by its other failures; and a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the way the Council dealt with his child, Z’s special educational needs and educational provision from November 2024 to July 2025. Mr X says the Council failed to:
1. complete the November 2024 emergency review of Z’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory timescales;
2. make alternative provision for Z from November 2024, when they were unable to continue to attend school, until July 2025; and
3. communicate properly with him about the review and Z’s educational provision.
2. Mr X says, because of the Council’s failures, Z missed out on their education for some seven months, impacting their mental health and wellbeing. This, together with the delay completing the annual review and the communication failures, also caused the family severe stress and worry. He wants the Council to make financial redress for the impact of the missed education on Z and the upset caused.

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.
4. 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. 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 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

EHC Plans and the review process 

9. A child or young person with special educational needs (SEN) 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.
10. 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 annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place.
11. Following the review meeting the council must issue a decision to either amend, maintain or cease to maintain 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) 
12. 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). 
13. 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.

Section 19 duty

14. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that councils must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child. The alternative educational provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.
15. If a council discovers a child is absent from school for an extended period, it should consider the reasons for this and take account of evidence from relevant parties (such as the child’s school, parents, and medical professionals). It must then decide whether it has a duty to make alternative educational provision.

Guide for practitioners

16. We publish good practice guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to identify and arrange alternative educational provision: Supporting children out of school (October 2025)
17. Our guidance says that councils should:

• consider all the reasons for a child’s absence from school, and make a written evidence-based decision about whether it will arrange alternative education provision;
• communicate this decision as a matter of good practice to parents and, where it decides not to arrange alternative education, tell parents the expectations about school attendance, and the potential consequences for continued absences;
• ensure the provision meets the individual needs of the child where it decides to arrange alternative education and explain its reasons for providing a part-time education if it decides the child cannot cope with full-time provision;
• keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing when the child is able;
• work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to their normal educational setting as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary; and
• ensure effective channels of communication between parents, internal teams, and external bodies (such as schools, and the NHS) so that issues are dealt with promptly by the right people, and that any complaints are identified and responded to under the relevant policy.

18. Where councils arrange for schools or other bodies to carry out their functions on their behalf, the council remains responsible. Councils should retain oversight and control to ensure their duties are properly fulfilled.

What happened

19. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

September to November 2024: Z starts their secondary school placement

20. Z has special educational needs. Their final EHC plan issued in January 2024 named a specialist base at a secondary school (school A) as their placement from September 2024. It set out the SEN provision which was to be made for them at the placement.
21. Z found the transition to secondary school very difficult. The school put in place reduced hours and a bespoke timetable to support Z with the transition.
22. Mr X says that although several strategies were tried, Z suffered a severe decline in their mental health. It was felt the school could not meet Z’s needs and a mutual decision was made in November that Z should be taken out of school.

November 2024: emergency annual review of Z’s EHC Plan

23. The school held an emergency review meeting of Z’s EHC Plan with Mr X on 29 November. The review records, sent to the Council following the meeting, noted:

• Z’s attendance was 54%;
• the meeting had been held as an emergency review in response to Mr X’s decision to remove Z from school because of the negative impact on their mental health;
• Mr X felt it imperative Z was provided with an educational package which did not impact their mental health; and
• the EHC Plan needed to be amended.

24. Following the review meeting, Mr X contacted the Council’s SEN team on 5 December 2024, referring to the emergency review. He asked how he could apply for a package of Education Otherwise than at School (EOTAS) for Z and about a referral to another specialist setting - placement B. He asked the Council to call him to discuss the situation as soon as possible.

January 2025: Council’s contact with Mr X about Z’s provision

25. On 6 January the Council replied to Mr X’s contact of 5 December. It apologised for the delay and arranged a call with him.
26. It spoke to Mr X on 8 January. Its note of the call says they discussed the review process, EOTAS and that, as the next step, the Council would share a draft amended EHC Plan and consult about other settings.
27. On 15 January Mr X told the Council placement B would not accept a referral for Z. He asked the Council to focus on a possible EOTAS package as discussed on the phone.

March to May 2025: draft amended EHC Plan

28. Mr X contacted the Council on 12 March to ask about the timeframe for the draft amended plan. He said Z had now been out of school for four months.
29. The Council told Mr X on 2 April it would send out the draft plan.
30. It issued the draft amended plan on 11 April. The Council says it consulted with other settings in line with parental preference and its views.
31. The consultations were completed in May.

June 2025: Mr X’s complaint to the Council

32. On 4 June Mr X complained to the Council about its failure to provide Z with an education, delays and communication failures. He said:

• Z had now been out of education for six months;
• the Council failed to contact him following the review meeting in November 2024 or respond to his urgent email of 12 March 2025;
• it was impossible to contact the SEN team. Its phone was not answered in the morning, there was no phone service at all in the afternoon, and no facility for leaving messages; and
• he immediately returned the delayed draft amended plan with his comments, but had heard nothing further about this.

June 2025: Council’s decisions about Z’s educational provision

33. On 13 June, the Council referred Z’s case to its SEN panel for a decision about their educational provision and placement.
34. The panel decided Z should be provided with alternative provision at placement B. This was arranged from 20 June.

July 2025: Z’s final amended EHC Plan is issued

35. Z’s final amended EHC Plan was issued on 25 July, naming their placement as school A with dual registration at placement B. Their SEN and educational provision included home tutoring twice a week.

Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint

36. The Council said, in its response to Mr X’s complaint, it:

• should have explained its process for decision-making about provision of education as EOTAS. A referral about Z’s school attendance should have been made to its Education Inclusion Service. It apologised for these failures;
• had provided incorrect information in January 2025 about the process for amending the EHC Plan and submitting a request for EOTAS to the panel;
• had decided section 19 provision was suitable for Z and agreed a 12-week placement at B from 20 June;
• accepted there had been delay completing the annual review process. It should have informed him of its decision to amend the plan by 27 December 2024, within four weeks of the review meeting;
• accepted there had been communication failures and a failure to keep him updated about the process; and
• apologised for the delays and communication failures.

37. The Council also said, in response to Mr X’s request for redress for Z’s missed educational provision:

• it had secured educational provision for Z. They remained on school A’s roll from September 2024;
• the school should have made a section 19 referral when Mr X decided Z should not continue to attend school; and
• this part of the complaint was not upheld.

38. The Council confirmed its SEND service was undertaking internal and external training on statutory processes, co-production and communication.
39. Mr X was not satisfied with this response and brought his complaint to us.

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

(a) Failure to complete the annual review within statutory timescales

40. The annual review meeting was held on 29 November 2024. The Council should have notified Mr X of its decision to amend Z’s EHC Plan within four weeks of the meeting, so by 27 December 2024. At the same time, it should have sent Mr X details of the proposed changes to the Plan. And it should then have issued the final amended EHC Plan within the next eight weeks, by 21 February 2025.
41. The Council failed to take any of these steps within the required timescales. It did not take any action following the review meeting in November 2024, until it issued the draft amended plan on 11 April and began consultations with other placements. And it did not issue the final amended plan until 25 July 2025 – a total delay of 22 weeks.
42. This failure to complete the annual review within the statutory timescale was fault.

Impact of this failure

43. The delay completing the annual review caused Mr X avoidable frustration, uncertainty and upset about the outcome of the review and changes to Z’s educational provision and placement in the amended EHC Plan.
44. And - had the Council engaged promptly with the information from the review meeting and its discussions with Mr X, and completed the final amended plan within the required timescale - I consider it more likely its decisions about Z’s placement and educational provision would have been made in February 2025, when the final plan should have been issued, instead of June 2025 when it was actually issued.

(b) Failure to consider its duty to make alternative provision for Z

45. The Council knew when it received the annual review paperwork, and from Mr X’s contact on 5 December 2024, Z had stopped attending school. But it failed to consider the reasons for this and whether it now had a duty to make alternative educational provision for Z.
46. And it failed to take any of the actions set out in our guidance (paragraph 16 of this decision).
47. Although Z remained on school A’s roll, the Council knew in early December 2024 they were not attending. It is the Council’s responsibility under section 19, and not the school’s, to arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child.
48. The Council did not consider making alternative provision for Z until June 2025, when its SEN panel decided it should, by which time Z had been out of school and not receiving an education for seven months.
49. The Council’s failure to properly consider its duty to make alternative provision for Z before June 2025 was fault.

Impact of this failure

50. The Council should have properly considered its section 19 duty to make alternative provision in December 2024, when it knew Z was not attending school. Had it done so, it is more likely, in my view - taking into account the information available about the unsuccessful attempts to make school accessible for Z and the reasons for their non-attendance - it would have decided, as it did in June 2025, it should make alternative provision for Z.
51. I consider it more likely alternative provision would then have been in place from the start of the new term in January 2025. As Z had not engaged in full time education for some months, it is more likely this would have on a part-time basis initially.
52. Because of the Council’s failure, in my view Z missed out on suitable educational provision from January to June 2025.
53. Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 to £2,400 per term to acknowledge the harm caused by that loss.  This payment is intended to remedy injustice caused to the child or young person from missing provision, as well as the normal range of consequential injustice also caused to the family due to this fault.
54. The amount is based on the impact on the child/young person and takes account of factors such as the severity of their SEN as set out in their EHC Plan and their ability to engage in full-time education.
55. In this case I consider a payment towards the middle of the range is appropriate here.

(c) Communication failures

56. The Council has accepted, and I agree, it failed to communicate properly with Mr X and keep him updated about the review of Z’s EHC Plan and arrangements for their educational provision.
57. It took a month to respond to Mr X’s urgent contact in December 2024 about the emergency annual review and Z’s school attendance. It failed to update him between January and April 2025 about progress with the amended EHC Plan. And, based on what Mr X had said about his attempts to contact the SEN team, it does not appear to have had an appropriate process for enabling parents to speak to officers by phone.
58. These communication failures were fault, causing Mr X additional avoidable upset, worry and frustration about what was happening with his child’s educational provision.

Service improvements

59. The Council has reviewed its policies and procedures around SEN provision and statutory processes. Its SEND improvement plan was put in place in 2025. In view of this I don’t propose recommending any additional service improvements to the Council’s SEN process.

Back to top

Action

60. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mr X for its failures to: complete the annual review of Z’s EHC Plan within statutory timescales; properly consider its duty to make alternative provision for Z; and its communication failures, and the upset these failures caused. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. pay Mr X £2,475 (based on 1.5 terms from January to June 2025) to acknowledge the harm caused by the loss of Z’s educational provision. This payment is intended to remedy injustice caused to Z from missing provision, as well as the normal range of consequential injustice caused to the family due to this fault; and
3. pay Mr X £150 to reflect the upset, frustration and uncertainty caused by its failure to complete the annual review process within the statutory timescales and its communication failures. This is a symbolic amount based on our guidance on remedies.
61. And within three months of this decision the Council has agreed to:
1. create an action plan showing how it will improve its internal processes for considering its section 19 responsibilities and making the necessary arrangements to put alternative provision in place in a timely manner.
62. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

63. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take the above action to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman