Summary: The Council did not notify Mrs Y of its decision following D's annual review in October 2024 and did not issue an amended EHC Plan until almost one year later. There is no evidence to show the Council considered or recorded whether it owed D a duty under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 when it became aware they were not attending school. This fault frustrated Mrs Y’s right of appeal and caused uncertainty about whether D should have received additional support sooner. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and complete some improvements to its service.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains the Council failed to complete her child’s emergency annual review within statutory timescales, did not arrange alternative provision for her child, and did not handle her complaint in line with its published complaints procedure.
2. She says, as a result, her child missed education and experienced social isolation. Mrs Y also experienced frustration and distress during the matters complained about.

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 recommend 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)
5. 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

6. I have started my investigation with the annual review meeting in October 2024. I have not investigated events before that date because they occurred more than 12 months before Mrs Y complained to us and I have seen no good reason to exercise discretion.
7. I have ended my investigation in September 2025 because, by then, the Council had issued its decision and Mrs Y had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal, which she subsequently used. Matters arising after that point are either outside our jurisdiction because of the appeal right or were premature when Mrs Y brought her complaint to us in August 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mrs Y 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

What should happen

Reviewing EHC plans

10. Councils must arrange for the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. Councils 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. 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) 
11. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal.
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). 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.
13. If the child’s parents disagree with the decision to cease the EHC Plan, the council must continue to maintain the plan until the time has passed.

Alternative provision

14. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that the council 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.
16. Councils should consider any attempts the school is making to support the child. This might involve sending work home for the child to complete, arranging disability related support, placing the child on a reduced timetable, or providing online education as a short-term measure. If there is a clear, effective, and time-bound plan for reintegration then there may be no immediate role for the council in providing alternative education.

What happened

17. At the time of the matters complained about, D had an EHC plan naming a mainstream school with additional specialist provision outlined in Section F.
18. Mrs Y reports that D’s school placement started to breakdown in 2024. She says the school segregated D from the classroom which in turn affected the type of education they received. Mrs Y ultimately felt that mainstream school was not appropriate for D as it did not meet their needs.
19. The school held an annual review on 22 October 2024, which the Council attended. Mrs Y has provided an audio recording of the review. This shows some discussion about alternative provision options and the suitability of online learning versus in person. Mrs Y mentioned three potential providers.
20. The review documented the professional opinion that alternative provision would be a last resort, and attempts should first be made to maintain D’s placement at school, possibly with a part-time timetable and other school-based interventions.
21. Following the review, the Council made a referral for Educational Psychology (EP). The EP provided their report in February 2025 which included a recommendation for play therapy due to D’s significant emotional needs.
22. The Council’s funding panel considered the EP report in May 2025 and discussed what additional provision D needed. The panel requested further information to help it make a decision.
23. In August 2025, and after considering the case further, the Council made a request for alternative provision funding. To begin from September 2025 the panel approved:
• Four hours of weekly tutoring to cover Maths and English; and
• Two days at Forest School each week.
24. The Council issued an amended final EHC plan on 26 September 2025 naming the mainstream school where D had previously attended, with a specialist placement from March 2026. Mrs Y appealed against the contents of that plan.
25. Mrs Y also complained to the Council. She said, in summary, that:
• The Council did not make a decision about the EHC plan within the required four-week timescale after the review meeting.
• This delay prevented her right to appeal decisions about the EHC plan.
• She regularly chased the school and the Council for updates.
• The delay contributed to D's school placement breaking down and to a decline in their mental health and educational prospects.
26. In its response to the complaint the Council accepted there was delay, but said:
• The annual review took place on 22 October 2024 and identified that additional funding may be necessary. The Council said D’s school was responsible for providing costed details of the proposed provision.
• The school did not submit that information until 23 May 2025, which the Council said was mostly due to staffing changes and the departure of the SENDCo. Once the Council received the information, it arranged for the request to go to the next available panel.
• The panel agreed it needed more information before it could make a decision including a second opinion on the need for play therapy and clarification from social care about whether it should contribute to the provision.
• The Council said D's SEND caseworker kept Mrs Y appropriately informed.
27. The Council concluded that, although there was delay, this was largely because of circumstances outside of its control. The Council said it acted appropriately once it received the information it needed. It therefore partially upheld the complaint and acknowledged that the delay caused stress, frustration and inconvenience to the family. It offered a symbolic remedy of £200.
28. Dissatisfied with the response, Mrs Y complained to the Ombudsman.

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

29. Following the review meeting on 22 October 2024, the Council should have notified Mrs Y within four weeks whether it intended to maintain, amend or cease D's EHC plan. We have seen no evidence it did so. The delay meant the Council did not complete the annual review process in accordance with the statutory timescales and delayed Mrs Y’s opportunity to challenge the Council's decisions through the SEND Tribunal. This caused uncertainty and frustration.
30. Although the Council says it could not progress the annual review because D's school had not provided costings for the proposed provision, responsibility for completing the annual review process remained with the Council. If the missing information prevented progress, we would expect to see evidence the Council actively pursued it by requesting updates, chasing outstanding information and escalating the matter. We have seen no evidence of such action.
31. In addition to the delay in completing the review process, Mrs Y also complains about the lack of provision made available for D once they stopped attending school. The evidence shows the Council was made aware of concerns about D’s placement in the October 2024 review meeting. The Council and Mrs Y discussed various options, including maintaining the mainstream placement with a part-time timetable, EP involvement and alternative provision.
32. However, the Council did not formally consider or record whether it owed D a duty under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, despite discussing the possibility of alternative provision in late 2024. The first evidence of the Council actively considering and approving alternative provision is August 2025. This was fault. In line with our approach, the injustice arising from this fault is uncertainty. Because the Council did not properly consider and document its decision-making at the time, Mrs Y cannot know whether the Council would have arranged alternative provision sooner had it acted without fault.

Complaint handling

33. After receiving the Council’s first response to her complaint, Mrs Y requested a Stage 2 review on 20 June 2025. Under the Council's complaints policy in force at the time, the Council was entitled to seek further correspondence between the complainant and service area to decide whether a matter required further Stage 1 consideration before Stage 2 investigation.
34. The evidence shows the Council referred the matter to the relevant team which decided in early July 2025 that Mrs Y’s complaint needed to return to the service for a further Stage 1 response. The Council was entitled to take this approach.
35. However, the Council told Mrs Y she would receive a further Stage 1 response by 24 July 2025. The Council did not provide this until 14 August 2025. This delayed progression of Mrs Y’s complaint. Mrs Y again asked for a Stage 2 investigation which the Council provided its response to on 26 September 2025 and within the 30 working days outlined in the policy in force at the time.
36. We find fault causing avoidable time and trouble because the Council did not meet the deadline it provided between Stage 1 and 2 and this prolonged resolution of Mrs Y’s complaint.

Back to top

Action

37. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mrs Y for the fault identified in this statement. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• In addition to the £200 already paid to Mrs Y, make a further symbolic payment of £500 (making the total financial remedy £700). This is in recognition of:
1. delayed appeal rights;
2. uncertainty caused by the Council’s failure to consider and record its decision about Section 19 duties; and
3. time and trouble caused by delayed complaint handling.
38. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council will also:
• Remind relevant officers that where the Council becomes aware a child may be out of education or unable to access suitable education, it should consider whether its Section 19 duty is engaged and keep an adequate record of its decision-making and the reasons for its decision.
39. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to implement the actions listed above to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman