Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not carry out a new Educational Psychologist assessment for her child and did not make a timely decision after an annual review of their Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council at fault for delays, not acting within statutory timeframes, with poor communication and complaint handling. This caused significant frustration, distress and denied Mrs X her appeal rights. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council declined to carry out a new Educational Psychologist assessment and failed to conclude the 2024 annual review of her child's Education, Health and Care Plan within statutory timeframes. She says this caused frustration and uncertainty, and her child's current needs have not been properly identified to ensure the correct support.

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. 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)
4. 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

5. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X. I considered her views and information she provided.
6. I considered the Council’s responses to Mrs X’s formal complaint and information it provided. I also considered relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs 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

Law and administrative background

Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans

8. A child 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. 
9. 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. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to 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) 
10. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal.

Background

11. Mrs X’s child (Y) has special educational needs (SEN) and an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Y attended the “School”.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

12. In December 2024, the School held an annual review. Mrs X said during this meeting, she and the School agreed Y needed a new Educational Psychologist (EP) assessment. The previous one was outdated and did not currently reflect Y.
13. In mid-June 2025, Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council. It had not taken any action with the annual review or arranged a new EP assessment, despite her chasing.
14. The next day, the Council caseworker spoke to Mrs X and followed up in an email:
• They said the Council and the School did not feel Y had a significant change in need. They suggested she could wait until the autumn for an early annual review where she could make another EP request if necessary.
• They also noted she asked for the letter for the Council’s decision not to amend Y’s EHC Plan, as it was out of statutory timeframes. They said as she had raised a formal complaint, any correspondence would be through the complaints process, which was a separate team.
15. Mrs X responded to clarify the Council’s statutory obligation to have sent a formal letter with its decision about Y’s EHC Plan within four weeks of the annual review. That was the subject of her complaint, and it was not allowing her access to her appeal rights. The caseworker apologised for the misunderstanding and sent a decision letter with her appeal rights.
16. At the start of July 2025, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at Stage 1. It noted her dissatisfaction as it had not carried out an updated EP assessment as part of the annual review process. It said EP involvement in the annual review process is not a statutory requirement. Following a review of the information and input from the School, it decided Y had no significant change in need that would necessitate a new EP assessment. It did not uphold her complaint. Mrs X escalated it. She added it failed to address the delays with the annual review outcome.
17. In early August 2025, the Council responded at Stage 2. It was satisfied with its decision and findings in its previous response. It did not uphold her complaint.

Analysis

Annual review decision

18. It is not our role as the Ombudsman to decide whether a child needs an updated EP assessment; that is the role of the Council.
19. I recognise Mrs X wanted this for Y and thought the Council would do this. She raised this as a matter of concern in her formal complaint. In response, the Council decided Y did not require a new EP assessment and it was satisfied Y’s EHC Plan remained relevant (and so it would not amend it). It was entitled to make this decision. However, it overlooked another related matter which Mrs X raised; it failed to complete the annual review process by making a timely decision in line with its statutory duties.
20. As per the Code (see Paragraph 9), the Council should have made this decision much sooner. It needed to be within four weeks of the annual review meeting, so by mid-January 2025. It did not do this. The Council sent its decision in late June 2025, a delay of five and half months, and only when prompted by Mrs X’s contact and later formal complaint. This is fault. This significant delay caused frustration, uncertainty and distress to Mrs X. It also denied Mrs X her appeal rights.

Communication and complaint handling

21. The Council is also at fault with shortcomings in its complaint handling and communication with Mrs X. She said she chased the Council without substantive responses. The Council also initially said it would not issue a decision letter as it was going through the complaints process. She had to explain to the Council her complaint was separate, and it had statutory duties with this outstanding letter, which it should have been aware of. This put Mrs X to some avoidable time and trouble. I note the Council did apologise for its misunderstanding on this point and promptly sent the letter, which was appropriate.
22. However, in both of the Council’s formal complaint responses, it failed to acknowledge its fault with breaching statutory timeframes with the annual review. This is further fault. This caused avoidable frustration to Mrs X as it missed a large part of her complaint, and (incorrectly) maintained it had acted as it should.

Back to top

Agreed Action

23. To remedy the personal injustice set out above, the Council agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the injustice caused by the faults identified (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology), and pay Mrs X a symbolic payment of £200 to recognise the injustice.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
25. In response to a previous decision around similar fault, the Council agreed to identify actions it would implement to ensure it meets statutory timeframes following annual reviews. It sent us evidence of this in summer 2025. This was after the events of this complaint, so I do not consider it necessary to recommend further service improvements at this point. We are satisfied with this for now and will be monitoring this through our ongoing casework.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman