Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed in completing a phase transfer for her son and failed to issue a final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory deadline. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to respond to her complaint of 4 July 2025. We found the failure to complete a phase transfer review was fault, as was the failure to respond to Mrs X’s complaint. These faults caused Mrs X and Y unnecessary stress, frustration and uncertainty. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed in completing a phase transfer for her son and failed to issue a final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory deadline. Mrs X says the Council failed to involve them in the phase transfer process, and she is unhappy with the content of the EHC Plan and how it was decided. Mrs X says this has left her son without a suitable school place.
2. Mrs X also complained the Council failed to respond to her complaint of 4 July 2025.

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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. 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.
5. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mrs X has also complained that the school has failed in its statutory duties over many years. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. This includes complaints about conduct, curriculum, internal organisation, management or discipline in any educational establishment maintained by the local authority. I am therefore unable to investigate Mrs X’s concerns about the school.
7. In addition Mrs X complained the Council refused to carry out a reassessment of her son’s needs. As set out above we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal to a tribunal about the same matter. Mrs X exercised her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal in relation to this decision, and irrespective of the outcome of this appeal, we are unable to investigate the Council’s decision to refuse to reassess her son’s needs.
8. We are also unable to investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the failure to provide a suitable education or the educational provision set out in her son’s EHC Plan from May 2025 onwards.
9. 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)
10. 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’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.
11. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents or young person. If the parent or young person 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.
12. As Mrs X appealed to the Tribunal in May 2025 we are unable to investigate any missed provision from that point until the tribunal proceedings concluded.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.

15. 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 council can do this.
16. 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.
17. In addition the council must review and amend an EHC Plan in enough time before a child or young person moves between key phases of education. This allows planning for and, where necessary, commissioning of support and provision at the new institution. The review and any amendments must be completed by 15 February in the calendar year in which the child is due to transfer into or between school phases. The key transfers are: 
• early years provider to school;  
• infant school to junior school;  
• primary school to middle school;  
• primary school to secondary school; and  
• middle school to secondary school.  

What happened here

18. The following is a summary of the key events relevant to our consideration of the complaint. It does not include everything that happened.
19. Mrs X’s son Y has an EHC plan and attended a special primary school, School 1. School 1 held an annual review meeting and sent a report to the Council in June 2024. The Council issued a draft amended EHC Plan on 12 July 2024 and invited Mrs X to make representations. It then issued a final EHC Plan on 2 August 2024. The Plan continued to name School 1.
20. Y started Year 6, his final year of primary school in September 2024.
21. School 1 is based over two sites. Primary aged pupils are taught at the school and secondary age students move to the college at a different site. Mrs X visited the secondary school site in March 2025 and raised concerns about its suitability for Y should he move there in September 2025. She asked the Council for a review of Y’s EHC Plan.
22. In April 2025 she then requested a change to the educational placement named in Y’s EHC Plan from September 2025. The Council confirmed this could be discussed at the annual review on 29 April 2025.
23. Following the annual review meeting Mrs X requested a reassessment of Y’s needs. She asserted his needs had changed significantly and the current EHC Plan did not accurately reflect his circumstances.
24. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 15 May 2025 advising it had decided not to reassess Y’s needs. Mrs X appealed this decision to the SEND Tribunal
25. In late May 2025 Mrs X asked the Council to provide a package of Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) for Y. The Council told Mrs X that EOTAS provision would only be considered if a young person does not have an educational setting named in their EHC Plan. In this case the Council has named School 1 as a suitable school and Y is on roll there.
26. The Council then confirmed on 30 May 2025 that it would amend Y’s EHC Plan. It issued a draft amended Plan on 10 June 2025. Mrs X commented on the draft Plan and suggested changes. Mrs X also reiterated that School 1 was not a suitable placement and should not be named in the final Plan.
27. Mrs X made a formal complaint on 4 July 2025. She complained of serious failings in the handling of her son’s EHC Plan during the statutory transfer phase. The Council did not respond to this complaint.
28. On 7 July 2025 the Council told Mrs X it had made amendments and was ready to finalise the draft Plan. It said it would be naming School 1. Mrs X was unhappy with this decision and felt it was in Y’s best interest for him to be home educated. She asked for Y to be removed from the roll at School 1.
29. The Council issued a final EHC Plan on 18 July 2025, naming School 1, but noting Mrs X had made her own arrangements to electively home educate.
30. Mrs X asked the SEND Tribunal to add the decision to name School 1 in section I of Y’s EHC Plan in her appeal. The tribunal agreed and also added the provision in section F of the Plan to the appeal.
31. In August 2025 Mrs X made a further complaint to the Council about failings at School 1, including: inaccurate academic assessment data, a failure to provide therapies, safeguarding failures around safety measures at the secondary school site; an inadequate complaint process and failings in the phase transfer process.
32. The Council responded to this complaint and other concerns Mrs X had raise with her local councillor on 3 September 2025. It noted Mrs X’s complaint was running through School 1’s complaint process and should be allowed to reach a conclusion. The Council also said the school had undergone a full safeguarding review. It was satisfied the school was following its policies and procedures when conducting pupil transitions, EHC plan reviews, and handling parental complaints.
33. Mrs X remains dissatisfied and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her concerns.
34. In response to our enquiries the Council says it is unable to confirm whether the annual review in 2024 was formally treated as a phase transfer annual review. It also acknowledges that the annual review meeting in April 2025 took place after the phase transfer deadline.
35. The Council recognises this lack of clarity will have caused Y and his family worry. The Councial also acknowledges that throughout the process it did not listen to Mr and Mrs X’s views and wishes about a placement, which led to the family feeling they needed to electively home educate Y. It is sorry for the impact this had.
36. Since the 2025 phase transfer annual review process the Council says its SEND Operations team has been restructured and a new management team is now in place. It says this team is implementing revised processes to improve the phase transfer cycle, ensuring that annual reviews are completed within statutory timescales, and that the Council works more closely and collaboratively with families.
37. It has also shared clearer guidance with schools about expectations for when annual reviews must be held in preparation for phase transfer windows.
38. The Council has also acknowledged its response in September 2025 did not address the concerns Mrs X raised in her complaint of 4 July 2025 and has apologised for this.

Analysis

39. The Council’s failure to complete a phase transfer review within the statutory time frame is fault. Phase transfer reviews must start within 12 months of a transition to a new phase of education. And the EHC Plan must be reviewed and amended by 15 February in the year of transfer.
40. As Y was due to move to secondary school in September 2025 discussions should have begun early in the autumn term of Year 6. The Council carried out an annual review in June 24, while Y was in Year 5. This was more than 12 months before Y moved to a new phase of education and was therefore too early for a phase transfer review.
41. The Council also carried out another review in 2025 and issued a final EHC Plan in July 2025, five months after the deadline had passed. Neither of these reviews can be treated as phase transfers reviews.
42. The Ombudsman takes the view that councils must abide by the statutory and legislative requirements under the SEN legislation and guidance. The Council’s failure to meet the required timeframes here is fault.
43. Mrs X is also unhappy about the content of the final EHC Plans, in particular the education placement named in Section I. This is a matter for the SEND Tribunal rather than the Ombudsman.
44. The failure to complete a phase transfer review and lack of clarity in the process caused Mrs X unnecessary stress, frustration and uncertainty and affected her wellbeing. It also put her to unnecessary time and trouble and delayed her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.
45. The failure to respond to Mrs X’s complaint of 4 July 2025 is also fault. We expect council’s to respond to complaints in line with their published complaints policy/ procedure. The failure to address Mrs X’s concerns has added to her distress and uncertainty.
46. I consider the Council should make a symbolic payment to recognise the stress frustration and uncertainty Mrs X and Y have experienced as a result of faults identified.
47. The Council has set out the actions it is taking to review and improve the phase transfer process, timeliness of reviews and its communication. I do not therefore intend to make service improvement recommendations in this area.

Back to top

Action

48. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mrs X and Y for the unnecessary stress, frustration and uncertainty they have experience as a result of the fault identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Make a symbolic payment to Mrs X of £500 to recognise the unnecessary stress, frustration and uncertainty she has experienced.
49. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

50. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman