Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed arranging an annual review for her child, B’s, Education Health and Care Plan. She said it failed to communicate adequately and did not make timely or effective efforts to secure a suitable school placement. We found the Council at fault for delays in the EHC review process. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment in recognition of B’s loss of education, as well as the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delays and poor communication.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that Slough Borough Council (the Council) delayed arranging an annual review for her child, B’s, Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She said it failed to communicate adequately and did not make timely or effective efforts to secure a suitable school placement. Mrs X said this left B out of school for an extended period which caused him to miss out on education, affected his emotional wellbeing and self‑esteem, and caused her significant distress and frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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. 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)
5. 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. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. 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

7. I have investigated the period from October 2024, when an annual EHC Plan review should have taken place for B, until October 2025 when Mrs X brought her complaint to us.
8. I have not investigated matters which carried a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Tribunal, including the school named in Section I of B’s EHC Plan.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
11. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

What I found

EHC Plan 

12. 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. 

Reviewing EHC Plans

13. 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. It must also secure a re-assessment of the EHC needs of a child or young person for whom it maintains an EHC plan if a request is made to it by the child's parent or the young person. A local authority may also secure a re-assessment of those needs at any other time if it thinks it necessary. (Section 44, Children and Families Act 2014)
14. 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. Following the review meeting the council must issue a decision to either 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) 
15. 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 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.
16. If the child’s parents or the young person disagrees with the decision to cease the EHC Plan, the council must continue to maintain the EHC Plan until the time has passed for bringing an appeal, or when an appeal has been registered, until it is concluded.

Appeal rights

17. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s:

• decision not to carry out an EHC needs assessment or reassessment;
• decision that it is not necessary to issue a EHC Plan following an assessment;
• description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified in their EHC Plan;
• amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan;
• decision not to amend an EHC Plan following a review or reassessment; and
• decision to cease to maintain an EHC Plan.

Section 19 duty

18. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that the council 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.
19. 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)

What happened

20. The Council held a review of B’s EHC Plan in October 2023 and decided to maintain the plan. In February 2024 B received a diagnosis of ADHD. In March 2024 B was permanently excluded from the school listed in his EHC Plan.
21. The Council said it put alternative provision in place following B’s exclusion. This began at around five hours per week and increased to around 16 hours per week from January 2025. Mrs X says the provision was inconsistent. The Council says B did not regularly engage with the sessions.
22. The Council says B’s previous school initially oversaw the tuition, with responsibility transferring to the Council in November 2024. It says it monitored and reviewed the suitability of the provision and adjusted it over time, taking B’s needs into account.
23. Mrs X complained to the Council in January 2025 that B had been out of school since March 2024 and was not receiving suitable education. The Council responded in February 2025, but treated this as an enquiry rather than a formal complaint.
24. In March 2025, the Council began consulting schools to identify a new placement. Mrs X escalated her complaint in April 2025. The Council issued its Stage Two response in May 2025 and partly upheld the complaint.
25. The Council completed annual review paperwork in May 2025 and held the review meeting in June 2025. It decided to amend the EHC Plan in August 2025.
26. The Council continued consulting schools during summer 2025. In September 2025, it issued a final amended EHC Plan and identified a placement. B started at the new school in November 2025.

Analysis

27. The Council has shown it arranged alternative provision following B’s exclusion and kept it under review. While the amount of provision was low and engagement inconsistent, there is evidence the Council considered B’s needs and adjusted provision over time. I have not found fault in how the Council discharged its duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996.
28. However, I found fault in how the Council managed B’s EHC Plan review.
29. There were significant changes in B’s circumstances before October 2024. B received an ADHD diagnosis in February 2024 and was permanently excluded in March 2024. These events fall outside the period I have investigated, but they provide important context. The Council should have considered whether these changes required an early review or reassessment of B’s EHC Plan.
30. B’s last annual review was in October 2023. The Council should have completed the next review by October 2024. It did not hold the review meeting until June 2025. This was a delay of around eight months, which was fault.
31. The Council then delayed further after the June 2025 review meeting. It issued its decision to amend around eight weeks after the meeting instead of within four weeks. It then took a further eight weeks to issue the amended Plan. Overall, it issued the final amended EHC Plan around 15 weeks after the review meeting. This was fault.
32. Had the Council completed the review on time in October 2024, it should have issued a final amended Plan by late December 2024. Instead, it issued the Plan in September 2025. This was a delay of around 39 weeks.
33. This delay caused injustice. It prolonged uncertainty for Mrs X and delayed the process of securing a suitable placement for B. While B received some alternative provision, he was not in a full-time school placement during this period. I am satisfied the delay contributed to a loss of educational opportunity and caused avoidable uncertainty and frustration.
34. The Council has apologised, but this does not fully remedy the injustice. I have therefore recommended a financial remedy.
35. I note the Council is already working under a Priority Action Plan with the Department for Education to improve its SEND services. I consider this sufficient to address wider service issues and do not make any further service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Action

36. To remedy the injustice, within one month of the final decision the Council should:
• Apologise to Mrs X and B in accordance with our guidance on making an effective apology.
• Pay Mrs X £1350 (£600 per term for 2.25 terms) in acknowledgement of the delays in completing the EHC review process and the avoidable uncertainty and frustration caused to her and B.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman