Summary: We found fault with the Council failing to complete the annual review process of Miss X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan for slightly over two outside the statutory timescales. We also found fault with the Council failing to ensure Miss X’s child had access to suitable and accessible full-time education and their full Education, Health and Care provision for slightly over two academic years. And, we found fault with the Council’s communication with Miss X. The Council has produced an up-to-date Education, Health and Care Plan since Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X and provide symbolic payments for Miss X’s frustration and inconvenience and her child’s missed education and Education, Health and Care Plan provision.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to secure a suitable school placement for her child despite a promise to source a specialist school placement in 2024.
2. Miss X complained the Council failed to provide suitable education and support from within her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X says she has needed to provide activities and education herself because of this.
3. Miss X also complained the Council provided contradictory information and failed to provide contacts in the promised timescales.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
7. 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)
8. 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

9. Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman in September 2025. We would normally only investigate Miss X’s complaint from September 2024, as Miss X took more than twelve months to bring matters before this date to our attention. However, I have exercised my discretion to investigate matters back to April 2024. This is because Miss X was in regular contact with the Council from April 2024 about the issues in this complaint. April 2024 is also twelve months on from the production of Miss X’s child’s first Education, Health and Care Plan. Therefore, this is a suitable starting point to our investigation.
10. I have referred to some information and events before April 2024 but this was for contextual information to inform our findings. I have not made any findings on the Council’s actions outside this timescale but have used some of this information to inform the Council’s decision making for the relevant investigation period.
11. I have ended my investigation from the end of July 2026. The Ombudsman cannot keep an investigation open ended and the relevant evidence in this case only runs up to this date.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Rules and regulations

EHC Plan 

14. A child or young person 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. 
15. Once the Council completes the EHC Plan it has a legal duty to deliver the educational and social care provision set out in the plan. The local health care provider will have the duty to deliver the health care provision.
16. The Ombudsman can look at any failure by the Council to deliver the provision within an EHC Plan.
17. 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 council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. A review is complete once the Council holds an annual review meeting and issues a decision letter about its intention to amend, cease or maintain an EHC Plan.

Section 19 duty

18. 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.

Establishing a section 19 duty

19. 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.
20. If a council wants to see medical or other evidence, it should ask for it at the earliest opportunity. The council should account for any challenges a parent might have in obtaining evidence, and review its position based on any new evidence it receives.
21. 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.

Good practice guidance

22. 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)
23. 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.

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

Council’s guidance to schools

25. The Council’s guidance it issues to schools says all schools have a statutory duty to provide full time education for all children and young people. The Council’s guidance says the statutory guidance outlines in some circumstances there may need to be a temporary reduction in education to meet an individual’s needs. The Council’s guidance says that best practice identifies that part-time timetable should only be in place for six weeks to allow full reintegration of a child and a reduced plan should not exceed 12 weeks.
26. The Council’s guidance says it is the school’s responsibility to decide when to reduce the education of a pupil. The Council’s guidance says where a child has an EHC Plan, the school was must arrange a meeting with the Council to agree any reduction in a child’s timetable. The Council also said a school must inform the Council about any proposed reduced timetable.
27. The Council’s guidance says schools should not consider a reduced education when a child has an EHC Plan and should instead hold an annual review to ensure current provision can still meet child’s needs.

Council complaints process

28. The Council runs a two stage complaints process.
29. At stage one the Council says it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days of receipt and provide a full response within ten working days of the acknowledgement.
30. A person can request consideration of their complaint at stage two. The Council will acknowledge a request for escalation within five working days and provide a full response within twenty working days of the acknowledgement.
31. The Council says in some circumstances it may not be able to adhere to its complaint response timescales. In these circumstances, it will tell the complainant about the need for an extension which will be a maximum of ten working days at stage one and twenty working days at stage two.

What happened

32. In April 2023, the Council produced the first EHC Plan for Miss X’s child, Y. This named a mainstream primary school, School 1, as Y’s educational placement from September 2023 in Section I. The Council outlined School 1 would provide all Y’s EHC Plan provision from Section F.
33. From January 2024, Y started to only attend School 1 in the mornings on a part-time timetable. School 1 held an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan and confirmed it considered it was no longer suitable to meet Y’s needs and that mainstream education was, in general, not suitable for Y. The annual review notes confirmed Y was struggling with attendance with this at 65% for the academic year so far.
34. In January 2024, the Council decided to start consulting Special Educational Needs (SEN) schools for Y. The first SEN school the Council consulted, School 2, told the Council Y did not have severe or profound enough difficulties to meet its admissions criteria.
35. In March 2024 and April 2024, Miss X contacted the Council for updates about sourcing an SEN school placement for Y. The Council told Miss X it had arranged a Panel meeting for May 2024 for Y.
36. In May 2024, the Panel meeting noted it was aware that Y was attending School 1 part-time and needed to get Y to return to school full-time. The Council noted Miss X’s request for an SEN school. Miss X requested an update from the Council about the Panel meeting in May 2024 and June 2024; the Council did not respond.
37. School 3, a mainstream school, told the Council in May 2024 that following observation of Y it did not consider Y would make progress in a mainstream school. School 3 said it does not have the resources of expertise of a specialist school which could meet Y’s needs.
38. School 1 held a further annual review of Y’s EHC Plan in June 2024 and noted Y’s attendance had dropped to 55%.
39. In July 2024, Miss X made a stage one complaint to the Council. Miss X said:
• Y is only attending School 1 for the morning each day because the school cannot meet Y’s needs.
• It is clear Y needs to be in an SEN school that can meet Y’s needs.
• She has been contacting the Council for updates since January 2024 but with limited responses and is receiving contradictory information from the Council and School 1.
40. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint at stage one and said:
• It accepted it had failed to provide timely responses to Miss X.
• Y has a right to attend school full-time and not just for the morning sessions. The Council said it would address this with School 1 in September 2024.
• It offered Miss X £200 for the distress caused to her needing to chase for responses.
41. The Council consulted three furthers schools for Y in July 2024, all three were SEN schools. Schools 4 and 5 responded in July 2024 to advise they were over-capacity. School 6 responded in August 2024 to advise it was also over-capacity.
42. In August 2024, Miss X requested consideration of her complaint at stage two. Miss X said:
• She did not accept the £200 offer because this focused on her inconvenience and did not address the wider issue of Y’s lack of access to suitable education.
• School 1 cannot meet Y’s needs and does not believe a mainstream school is suitable for Y.
43. A second Panel meeting in August 2024 noted Miss X’s request for an SEN school for Y. The Panel advised the Council to consider School 7.
44. The Council provided a stage two complaint response in September 2024. The Council said:
• It upheld Miss X’s complaint about delayed responses and had raised this with the caseworker.
• It had undertaken a number of consultations for Y with SEN schools but had not secured a placement. The Council said it would review all responses and find a suitable school placement for Y.
• While it upheld Miss X’s complaint about the failure to find a suitable school placement it cannot move Y immediately. The Council said it was carrying out work to maximise Y’s learning at School 1.
• Miss X could approach the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman with her complaint.
45. In November 2024, following consultation, School 8, an SEN school, told the Council Y was working below the standards required for admission at its school and it could not meet Y’s needs.
46. A third Panel meeting in March 2025 asked the Council to consult with School 9 for Y.
47. School 1 also held an annual review meeting for Y’s EHC Plan in March 2025. School 1 confirmed it could not meet Y’s needs and Y’s attendance was at 23%. The annual review meeting notes confirmed Y’s EHC Plan provision was in place but Y was on a part-time timetable.
48. In April 2025, School 9 offered a place for Y but Miss X declined this placement. Miss X said she did not consider this school was suitable for Y and asked the Council to consult School 7 and School 8.
49. In May 2025, the Council held a Panel meeting for Y. The Panel noted Miss X’s rejection of School 9 and request for consultation with Schools 7 and 8 and a new EHC Plan.
50. Miss X made a new complaint to the Council in July 2025. Miss X said:
• The Council had not updated Y’s EHC Plan since its production.
• She is constantly chasing the Council for updates and wanted a new caseworker.
• She wanted the Council to carry out a formal investigation and outline the next steps for Y’s education.
51. The Council provided a stage one complaint response to Miss X and said:
• It accepted it had not updated and shared Y’s EHC Plan in a timely manner.
• It accepted Y’s 2023 EHC Plan does not reflect Y’s needs and strengths.
• It had consulted six schools for Y in 2024 but all had declined places for Y and is still trying to find a suitable educational placement for Y.
• It apologised for Miss X needing to repeatedly chase for updates and apologises for this.
52. Miss X sought consideration of her complaint at stage 2. Miss X said the Council’s stage one complaint response did not provide suitable information about the Council’s plan for Y’s education. Miss X said while School 1 was doing everything it could to support Y, the Council was failing to ensure Y had full delivery of Y’s EHC Plan or access to a full and appropriate education.
53. In August 2024, the Council provided a response at stage two. The Council said:
• It apologised for the lack of contact from Miss X’s caseworker and has asked a senior casework adviser to complete an audit into Miss X’s caseworker.
• It has continued to invest in creating additional SEN places but demand for these places has exceeded the capacity.
• It is providing higher funding to School 1 to support Y and deliver Y’s EHC Plan. The Council said School 1 could apply for extra funding if it felt this was needed.
• It considered School 1 was providing Y’s education and implementing Y’s EHC Plan.
• It offered Miss X £300 for the further stress and frustration she has experienced.
54. As of the end of April 2026, Y remained enrolled at School 1. The Council has confirmed it intends to carry out further consultations with SEN schools for Y.
55. In July 2026, the Council produced an updated amended Final EHC Plan for Y.

Analysis

EHC Plan reviews

56. The Council had twelve months from issuing the first EHC Plan for Y, in April 2023, to complete an annual review of this EHC Plan. This included holding an annual review meeting and sending a letter to Miss X advising of its plan to amend, maintain or cease Y’s EHC Plan. The Council took until July 2026 to produce an updated Final EHC Plan for Y despite School 1 holding three annual review meetings during this time. The Council’s failure to complete the annual review process means it has failed to meet the statutory timescales by slightly over two years as of July 2026. This delay was fault.
57. This delay of slightly over two years has meant that Miss X has experienced frustration and inconvenience and has also delayed her appeal rights to the Tribunal about the school placement. Y has also had potentially out-of-date Section F provision and a debatably unsuitable school placement in Section I included in their EHC Plan. The Council has itself accepted the EHC Plan was not reflective of Y’s needs and strengths.
58. The Council has now produced an amended final EHC Plan for Y and shared this with Miss X in July 2026. The Council provided Miss X with her appeal rights to the Tribunal; this resolves this aspect of Miss X’s complaint. The Council should also provide a symbolic payment of £1,500 for the injustice its fault caused.
59. The Council has already outlined the service improvements it has made for monitoring of EHC Plan reviews in its response to the Ombudsman and I do not consider further service improvements are needed.

Access to suitable education

60. The Council has a responsibility to ensure a child has access to suitable full-time education to meet their needs.
61. In April 2023, the Council decided School 1 was suitable and accessible education for Y; the Council was entitled to make this decision at this time. However, the Council has accepted since January 2024 that Y needs a school placement at an SEN school and has consulted with six SEN schools since this date.
62. The Council has advised it has not considered Section 19 provision of education for Y because it considers School 1 can meet Y’s needs. This does not fully align with the Council’s decision that Y needs an SEN school placement and its consultations with such schools.
63. The Council failed to update Y’s EHC Plan and kept a mainstream school, School 1, as Y’s named educational placement in Section I from April 2024 to July 2026. This was fault. This fault meant that Miss X could not formally dispute the school placement through the Tribunal process and also meant the Council did not make another formal decision about the suitability of Y’s school placement through the EHC Plan process.
64. Since the start point of this investigation, in April 2024, Y has been on a part-time timetable with School 1. This means for slightly over the past two full years, Y has not accessed school full-time.
65. The Council has told the Ombudsman it never agreed for Y to be on a reduced timetable at School 1 and that it was School 1’s responsibility for agreeing to this part-time timetable with Miss X. The Ombudsman cannot investigate the actions of schools so I cannot comment on School 1’s agreement with Miss X or the actions School 1 has taken in reducing Y’s access to education.
66. However, the Council is ultimately responsible for ensuring a child has access to suitable full-time education. The Council’s guidance to schools outlines that a part-time timetable should not exceed twelve weeks and should tell the Council about any reduced timetable. By the start point of this investigation, Y had already been on a reduced timetable for twelve weeks and the Council was aware that Y had been on this reduced timetable. It was the Council’s responsibility to act to ensure School 1 was giving Y access to suitable full-time education or find a school placement that could provide this to Y. While the Council offered School 9 to Miss X in April 2025, which Miss X rejected, the Council has not offered any other school placements and has also failed to consult School 7 despite its panel recommending this. The Council’s inability to provide full-time education for Y was fault.
67. The Council’s guidance to schools also outlined that schools should not consider a reduced timetable when a child has an EHC Plan and should instead hold an annual review for the child. Despite School 1 holding three annual review meetings for Y, the Council took no action on the back of these annual review meetings. This was fault.
68. Overall, since April 2024, the Council has failed to ensure Y had access to suitable and full-time education. The Council failed to keep Y’s part-time timetable under review with School 1, failed to work with Miss X to draw up plans to try to promote Y back into full-time education, failed to find a suitable SEN school placement for Y and failed to discuss expectations and consequence of Y’s absences from school. The Council also failed to make a formal written decision about whether Y needs Section 19 provision of education. The Council’s inaction has caused Y to miss full-time education which has also prevented access to their full EHC Plan provision for slightly over two full academic years. This was fault.
69. Our guidance on remedies for a loss of educational provision recommends a payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The exact figure should be based on the impact on the child. This should take into account factors such as the amount of provision put in place and a child’s individual needs.
70. I have considered Y’s individual circumstances, including the impact on both Y’s access to full-time suitable education and their full EHC Plan provision. I have also considered mitigating factors including the part-time education available through School 1, including access to some of EHC Plan provision, and the Council’s offer of a place at School 9. I consider the Council should pay Miss X a total of £7,800 as a symbolic payment for Y’s missed education and EHC Plan provision over the course of slightly over two full academic years.

Communication and complaint handling

71. Across the Council’s two sets of complaints it issued to Miss X it offered £200 in 2024 and £300 in 2025 for the poor communication and service provided by Y’s caseworker. Having reviewed these offers in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies I consider this a suitable offer for the injustice caused to Miss X through poor communication and delayed contacts.
72. The Council handled Miss X’s complaints within its complaint timescales in both 2024 and 2025 at both stages of the complaints process. I do not consider an increased on this goodwill award for customer service is required.
73. The Council has not paid Miss X either goodwill award because Miss X has not accepted these. The Council should provide this £500 payment to address the injustice caused as part of the outcome to the Ombudsman’s investigation.
74. The Council has already completed an audit into Y’s caseworker through a senior SEND caseworker adviser and provided suitable reviews and tighter monitoring of their work moving forwards. Given this appears to be an individual staff member as opposed to a wide issue, I do not consider service improvements are required.

Back to top

Action

75. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
• Provide a payment to Miss X of £1,500 for the inconvenience and frustration caused to Miss X and the impact of having potentially out of date and unsuitable provision and school placement within their EHC Plan on Miss X’s child as well the impact of the delayed appeal rights caused by its delay of slightly over two years outside the statutory timescales in reviewing and updating her child’s EHC Plan.
• Provide a payment to Miss X of £7,800 for the impact on Y caused by the Council’s failure to ensure Y had access to suitable full-time education and their full Education, Health and Care Plan provision for slightly over two full academic years.
• Provide Miss X with a payment of £500 for the injustice caused to Miss X by its poor communication and delayed contacts.
• Provide an apology to Miss X for the inconvenience and frustration Miss experienced and her child’s missed educational provision caused by the Council’s fault. 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.
76. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

77. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman