Summary: Mr X complained that the Council delayed finalising his son’s Education, Health and Care plan. We have found the Council was at fault and caused a delay of nine weeks. This caused Mr X and his son uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise for this injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the delay in finalising his son, Mr Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. Because of these delays, he says Mr Y’s college placement was also delayed.
2. Mr X says some consultations with colleges were arranged during school holidays and this meant they were not given meaningful opportunity to visit or engage with colleges.
3. Mr X says these problems caused Mr Y significant anxiety and distress. He says the situation put significant pressure on the family with disruption to family life, extra costs such as lost income and travel costs to accompany Mr Y to college visits.
4. Mr X says Mr Y was denied timely transition planning and did not start his placement until October 2025 due to him being offered a day placement rather than a residential placement.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone had a right of appeal to a tribunal about the same matter, or could have taken it to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would have been unreasonable to expect the person to use these rights. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(6)(a) and 26(6)(c), as amended)
7. 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.
8. 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)
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 have and have not investigated

10. The Council issued Mr Y’s education, health and care (EHC) plan naming a day placement in May 2025.
11. When the Council made this decision, Mr X was given a right of appeal to the Tribunal. At that point, this matter became something for the Tribunal to decide.
12. It would have been reasonable to expect Mr X to use this appeal right, and, for this reason, I cannot look at his complaint about the naming of the provision or any lack of education associated with the naming of this provision. This is because the law prevents us from investigating matters which could have been resolved by the Tribunal. Our role cannot overlap that of the Tribunal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Law, guidance and policy

15. A child with special educational needs may have an education, health and care (EHC) plan. This document describes the arrangements which should be made to meet the child’s needs
16. 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 SEND Code paragraph 9.194)
17. This should happen within four weeks of the review meeting (SEND Code paragraph 9.169). Councils must issue the final amended EHC plan within a further eight weeks (SEND Code paragraph 9.196).
18. For young people moving between post-16 institutions, the review process should normally be completed by 31 March where a young person is expected to transfer to a new institution in the new academic year. (SEND Code paragraph 9.181).
19. Before naming a provision in Section I of the EHC plan, the council must consult with the setting that has been requested as well as any other setting the council is considering having named in the plan. The council should give them 15 days to respond. (Children and Families Act 2014, Section 39).

What happened

20. In mid-November 2024, Mr Y had his annual review. Soon after, the Council sent out consultations to four providers, including the one preferred by Mr X and Mr Y.
21. In early December 2024, the Council sent a further consultation to another post- 16 provider.
22. In early April 2025, the Council finalised Mr Y’s amended EHC plan but did not name a placement in Section I. On the same day, it sent out another consultation. By this point, the Council had contacted six providers in total.
23. In mid-April 2025, Mr X raised his concerns with the Council. The Council then asked Mr Y for consent to allow Mr X to act on his behalf.
24. At the end of May, the Council issued another amended EHC plan naming the placement preferred by Mr X and Mr Y.
25. In June 2025, Mr X raised concerns about the adult social care team. It was agreed these concerns would be included in a single response.
26. In early July 2025, the Council sent its response to Mr X’s complaint. Mr X was unhappy and asked for the complaint to move to Stage 2.
27. In early August 2025, at Stage 2, the Council accepted it was at fault for delaying the final EHC plan. It said the plan should have been issued by the end of March 2025.
28. In mid-August 2025, Mr X complained to the Ombudsman,
29. Mr Y was on roll at the named placement at the beginning of the September 2025 academic year.

My findings

30. The Council sent consultations to a number of providers following Mr Y’s annual review. This was in line with statutory guidance, which requires councils to consult with potential placements before naming a provider in Section I of an EHC plan. The evidence shows the Council approached several providers, including Mr X and Mr Y’s preferred placement.
31. There is no evidence the Council acted outside the proper process, including by sending consultations during school holiday periods. I therefore find no fault in how the Council carried out the consultations.
32. The statutory timescales for post-16 transfers are clear. Where a young person is transferring to post-16 education, the final EHC plan should be issued by 31 March in the year of transfer.
33. But also, following an annual review, councils must issue the final amended plan within a maximum of 12 weeks. In Y’s case, the Council should have finalised the plan by early February 2025. Instead, it issued the final plan in April 2025. This was around nine weeks late and is fault.
34. While there was delay in issuing the final plan, I have seen no evidence this resulted in Mr Y missing education or provision during that period. However, I accept the delay would have caused uncertainty and frustration for Mr Y and his family, for which the Council should apologise.
35. Mr X says Mr Y was denied timely transition planning and did not start his placement until October 2025 because the Council named a day placement rather than a residential placement. The Council issued a second amended final EHC plan in May 2025 naming a placement, which was before the start of the September 2025 academic year and allowed time for transition arrangements.
36. To the extent that Mr X’s complaint relates to the type of placement named, its suitability, or any alleged loss of education arising from that decision, this was a matter for the Tribunal once the final plan was issued. As explained in paragraphs 10-12, I cannot investigate those matters.

Back to top

Action

37. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to write to Mr X and Mr Y, apologising for the delay in issuing Mr Y’s EHC plan and for the uncertainty this caused. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council will consider this guidance when writing to Mr X and Mr Y.
38. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done this.

Back to top

Decision

39. The Council was at fault. This caused injustice to Mr X and Mr Y, which the Council will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman