Summary: Miss X complained about delays and the Council’s actions, communication, and handling of special educational provision for her child within their Education, Health and Care Plan. We found the Council acted within expected timeframes with the review process to add the provision. The Council accepted fault with its communication and complaint handling and offered a symbolic payment remedy. We considered this appropriate to reflect Miss X’s injustice and did not make further recommendations.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about delays, poor communication by the Council, and how it handed her requests for specific therapy that her child needed for their Education, Health and Care Plan. She says this caused significant frustration, distress and uncertainty for the family, and she says a lack of therapy provision negatively impacted on her child’s wellbeing and behaviour.

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

What I have and have not investigated

5. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
6. This means that if a child is not attending school, and we decide the reason for non-attendance is linked to, or is a consequence of, a parent or young person’s disagreement about the special educational provision or the educational placement in the EHC Plan, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision.
7. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents. If the parent goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the Tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views and information she provided.
9. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss X and the organisation 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

11. 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 special educational needs, special educational provision specified, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 
12. From the point a council issues a final EHC Plan, it has a duty to make sure the child receives the special educational provision set out in Section F (Section 42 Children and Families Act).

Reviewing EHC Plans

13. The annual review 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 review meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
14. After an annual review, where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments (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.

Background

15. I refer to different types of specific creative therapy (around self-expression) in this statement, naming them Therapy 1, 2 and 3.
16. In September 2024, the Council issued a final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Miss X’s child (D). Miss X attended mediation and later appealed.
17. Prior to this, Miss X had previously privately arranged Therapy 1 sessions for D and transported D to these herself.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

18. In March 2025, in line with a SEND Tribunal consent order, the Council amended and issued D’s final EHC Plan. This included Therapy 2 initially for a block of 6 sessions, and Therapy 3 initially for a block of 6 sessions.
19. In April 2025, the sessions for Therapy 2 concluded. In the therapist report, they noted D used to attend Therapy 1. The therapist felt D would benefit from ongoing Therapy 1 in line with D’s natural talents and interest, rather than continuing with Therapy 2.
20. Miss X made a formal complaint. She raised concerns about the conduct and communication by officers, and delays in provision for D, relating to the Council’s handling of D’s EHC Plan which led to the recent Tribunal proceedings.
21. At Stage 1, the Council accepted communication by officers at the time may not have felt supportive and apologised for any distress caused. It said the time taken stemmed from statutory and legal processes and acknowledged timelines could be lengthy and frustrating. It accepted it could have handled communication more effectively.
22. Miss X escalated her complaint. She added further issues about the Council’s handling of D’s Therapy 1 with no clear plans to arrange this and inconsistent communication.
23. In June 2025, a request went to the Council’s Panel to consider a personal budget for Therapy 1 for D. The Panel did not agree to this.
24. A month later, in early July 2025, D’s school held an interim review of D’s EHC Plan. Miss X wanted to amend the EHC Plan to include Therapy 1 as per D’s preference and in line with professional recommendations. Miss X also asked for support with transporting D to and from Therapy 1 sessions due to changes in her work commitments.
25. Within two weeks, the Council sent Miss X a decision letter. It proposed to amend D’s EHC Plan and sent a draft copy, with Therapy 1 listed in Section F.
26. Miss X emailed the Council. She wanted the specific therapist named to ensure consistency for D’s benefit, who had worked well with them previously. The Council said it agreed to include Therapy 1 in the EHC Plan but advised it should take place at the school. If she wanted transport support to take D out of school for the sessions, it asked Miss X to complete a personal budget request to be considered at Panel.
27. In late July 2025, Miss X said she had done this previously and the request declined. She asked the Council to resubmit the same form (amended slightly) to minimise further delays. Miss X chased this a few times and later sent the form again. She said the gap in therapy provision had impacted on D’s wellbeing and behaviour, resulting in interventions needed to manage D’s severe distress at home. The Panel later declined the request. It was of the view D’s sessions could be continued with another therapist in school.
28. In August 2025, the Council issued a final EHC Plan for D. This included 12 sessions of Therapy 1. Miss X requested mediation and later appealed.
29. In late August 2025, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at Stage 2. It accepted fault with complaints handling as it had issued late responses. It accepted different members of staff provided varying information about Therapy 1 provision and apologised for the inconsistency and frustration caused. It maintained other findings from its previous response. It overall upheld her complaint. It offered £350 as a remedy. This included £200 to acknowledge distress and inconvenience, £100 for delays in communication, and £50 for delays in complaint handling.
30. In August 2025, Miss X complained to us, largely about the Council failing to provide Therapy 1 to D under Section F and refusing to fund transport. She said the Council’s view of a different therapist at school was unsuitable, not in line with professional recommendation and against D’s wishes. She said Council delays and administrative failures had caused D’s severe distress resulting in challenging behaviour.

Analysis

Jurisdiction

31. Jurisdictional restrictions outlined in Paragraphs 5 to 7 apply here. I can consider the events in between the final EHC Plans.
32. Miss X exercised her appeal rights against the September 2024 EHC Plan and, separately, the August 2025 final EHC Plan. This is the correct and appropriate way to challenge decisions the Council makes about the content of EHC Plans. I therefore cannot consider the Council’s decisions made towards these as it links to the subject of the appeals. This includes Miss X’s disagreements with the Council about the specifics of Therapy 1 provision and transport, in the later EHC Plan.

Amending the EHC Plan

33. It is not our role to say what provision a child needs and in what way it should be delivered. These decisions are made by the Council or the Tribunal. We look at whether processes have been followed.
34. After the review in July 2025, the Council agreed to amend D’s EHC Plan with Therapy 1. It had to send its decision within 4 weeks of the meeting; the Council did it within 2 weeks. It received and considered Miss X's comments. It issued the final EHC Plan in late August 2025. It had to do this within 12 weeks of the meeting (by late September 2025); the Council did it within 7 weeks. I am satisfied the Council acted within statutory timelines to add provision to D’s EHC Plan after the review (see Paragraphs 13 to 14). I do not find the Council at fault.
35. I recognise Miss X feels there have been significant delays with Therapy 1 provision. It is clear D experienced distress during this time, affecting the whole family. Miss X says it was due to months of no therapy because of the Council’s lack of urgency. However, as I do not find fault, I cannot say this is linked to the Council’s actions around provision as it followed the process expected.
36. I also cannot say D missed provision up to that point. The Council was under a legal duty to provide Therapy 1 once it issued the final EHC Plan in August 2025, not before. But Miss X appealed this and as explained previously, I cannot consider events after this.
37. I consider the short period leading up to the review. The Council said Miss X requested Therapy 1 in May 2025. It took this to Panel in June 2025 (it declined the request). This may have been a way to potentially agree funding outside of the EHC Plan process. But in this case, as it related to specific provision, it may have been more beneficial to consider this in the review process initially. There was also a short gap in between when the school then arranged the review.
38. But I do not consider this warrants a formal finding of fault by the Council. Even if a review did take place instead of the Panel, it would not have significantly affected overall expected timeframes for the EHC Plan process. This would have meant the 12-week timeframe would be around late August 2025 instead, and the Council issued the final EHC Plan around this point anyway. I do not consider this would represent a potential significant or excessive delay.

Communication and complaint handling

39. The Council acknowledged late complaint responses and inconsistency with its communication with Miss X, including about the process to add Therapy 1 provision. This is fault. It also accepted general contact by its officers could have been better and a lack of timely updates. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration, some uncertainty, along with unnecessary confusion with mixed messages.
40. The Council apologised and offered a remedy of £350 to acknowledge the injustice caused by these faults. I welcome the Council’s acknowledgement of its fault and positive offer. I consider this is in line with our guidance on remedies. It is open to Miss X to accept this if she wishes, but I do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Decision

41. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has offered a suitable remedy for the injustice, and I do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman