Summary: Ms Y complains the Council did not take appropriate action when her child, D, stopped attending school. She also complains there was a delay in reviewing and amending D’s Education, Health and Care Plan. In response to our enquiries, the Council has accepted fault and that this caused an injustice to Ms Y and D. It has proposed a remedy which is appropriate. We do not recommend anything further.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains that, despite an annual review taking place in September 2024, the Council failed to issue a review decision within statutory timescales and did not issue a final amended EHC Plan until October 2025.
2. During the period of delay, her child stopped attending school in May 2025 due to anxiety and safeguarding concerns, yet Ms Y was unable to challenge the continued naming of the school because the annual review process remained incomplete. The Council then provided incorrect information about her appeal rights.
3. Although the Council later acknowledged delay and offered a financial remedy, Ms Y complains that the remedy does not fully reflect the significant injustice caused.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
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 matters up until October 2025. This is because our Investigation Manual says we should set end dates for our investigations. The end date should usually be the date from which the complaint reached the LGSCO. Ms Y complained to us in mid-September 2025.
8. Furthermore, Ms Y had a right of appeal against D’s provision and named placement from October 2025. Any ongoing disagreements about the suitability of D’s school after October were, in my view, linked to Ms Y’s grounds of appeal and therefore a matter which the LGSCO cannot investigate.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Ms Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received 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).

Back to top

What I found

EHC plans, reviews and appeals

12. Councils must arrange for EHC plans to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure they are 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. 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) 
13. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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)
17. This means that if a child or young person 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.
18. 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. We would not usually look at the period while any changes to the EHC Plan are finalised, so long as the council follows the statutory timescales to make those amendments.

What happened

19. This section provides a summary of the key events relevant to the complaint and is not a complete chronology.
20. D had an EHC plan issued by the Council in July 2023. This named a mainstream primary school with some specialist 1:1 provision to be delivered in accordance with Section F of the EHC plan.
21. On 4 July 2024 Ms Y emailed the Council to express concerns about D’s school provision. She said D had not received the provision outlined in Section F of their EHC plan, including the dedicated 1:1 support. Due to this, Ms Y said D displayed signs of regression and sometimes refused to attend school.
22. The Council arranged a meeting with Ms Y and the school on 10 July. In summary, the meeting covered the following points:
• The annual review is postponed from July to September 2024 to allow time to gather professional advice and updated information.
• The Council challenged the school and reminded them D’s EHC plan is a legal document.
• The school uses “best endeavours” to support D, with some improvements noted (e.g. reduced anxiety and better attendance over a recent period).
• The Council asked the school to produce an updated provision map and clearer timetable of provision to enable the Council to review any shortfalls in funding.
• The Council did not agree the school was failing to deliver provision at that time but identified some areas for improvement.
23. The annual review meeting went ahead in September 2024. During the meeting, D’s parents raised some significant concerns about the adequacy of the plan.
24. The Council noted the parental concerns and in early October recorded its intention to amend D’s plan, “because [they] have moved to Key Stage 2 and [their] outcomes need to reflect this".
25. Despite this, the Council did not issue a formal decision following the annual review within statutory timescales. This meant that D did not have the benefit of an updated plan and Ms Y did not have a right of appeal.
26. At the end of October 2024, an email between the Council and the school shows an agreement by the Council to increase the funding available to the school for D to support their social emotional and mental health.
27. The records show that in March 2025 the Council handed D’s case over to a new caseworker. Ms Y says the Council did not communicate this change with her.
28. In May 2025 D stopped attending their allocated school due to anxiety and emotionally based school avoidance (EBSA) which Ms Y said was a consequence of the school being unsuitable for D’s needs. The Council became aware of D’s non-attendance from 11 June.
29. At the end of July 2025, the governors of D’s school met with Ms Y to discuss her concerns. Ms Y told the school that D would not return, and she hoped to arrange a transition to a different school.
30. However, the school told the Council it could meet D’s needs and had put in place reasonable adjustments. The school also told the Council it had arranged a meeting to discuss D’s placement at school, but Ms Y did not attend.
31. On 11 August 2025 the Council emailed Ms Y to say “… until such time that it is agreed to change and the plan amended, [D] is expected to attend [their] current named placement. If you choose to keep [D] off from school, you are placing yourself at risk of possible formal action for non-school attendance”.
32. On 12 September 2025, and 12 months after the annual review meeting, the Council issued a decision notice with an intention to amend D’s EHC plan.
33. The Council issued a final amended EHC plan on 13 October 2025. This did not name a placement because Section I was blank. The Council has since confirmed this was an error: the EHC plan should have named the school which D had previously attended. The final plan carried a right of appeal to the SEND tribunal, which Ms Y used.
34. The Council arranged a meeting on 26 November to discuss D’s non-attendance at school. Ms Y expressed her frustrations about the lack of action taken by the Council to support D. The school also expressed concerns about its inability to meet D’s needs. It later clarified this was due to strained relations between D’s parents and school staff, rather than being unable to meet D’s educational needs.
35. In January 2026 the Council wrote to Ms Y to confirm the date of an upcoming annual review and ‘pupil planning meeting (PPM)’ to set out a proposed reintegration plan. It also reiterated that, “it remains the expectation that [D] will attend [the school] in accordance with [their’ Education, Health and Care Plan”. The Council went on to say: “[the school] have confirmed their willingness to work flexibly and sensitively with both you and [D] to support a successful reintegration, with a clear focus on [their] wellbeing as well as [their education]”.
36. The PPM went ahead as planned on 12 February 2026. Following this, the Council agreed to arrange alternative provision with tuition which started from 4 March 2026.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Ms Y and D?

37. In response to our enquiries the Council acknowledged there was delay in recognising the need for alternative provision and initiating Section 19 duties. It said this was due to several reasons, such as the school’s assurances that it could meet D’s needs and a lack of clear medical or professional evidence to suggest that D could not attend their allocated school. The Council has also explained that extended staff absence negatively impacted on delayed interventions for D. The Council also accepted there was non-compliance with the timescales for the annual review and amendment process.
38. The Council acknowledges that, had it fully considered updated advice from an Educational Psychologist (EP) and Occupational Therapist (OT) received in October 2025, it would have sought interim alternative provision for D. This is because that advice said D could not attend school. In light of this, the Council has now proposed the following remedy:
• £2400 for D’s lost educational provision.
• £1300 for distress and time and trouble caused by administration errors and delays.
• A formal written apology to acknowledge the various areas of fault.
• Make improvements to its service, such as:
1. strengthening oversight of the delivery of provision set out in EHC plans;
2. improve the timeliness and quality assurance of EHC plan reviews and amendments; and
3. improve communication standards and case management decision-making.
39. I have considered whether the proposed actions are sufficient to remedy the injustice identified. Between September 2024 and June 2025, the evidence shows the Council took some steps in response to concerns about provision, including providing additional funding intended to support delivery of 1:1 support. In my view, the most significant injustice arose between June and October 2025, when the Council was aware D was not attending school but did not arrange suitable alternative provision.
40. Any claimed fault after October 2025 occurred in the context of a right of appeal to the Tribunal about the content of the amended EHC plan. For the reasons explained in paragraphs 7, 8 and 16 of this statement, I have not recommended a remedy for loss of education from October onwards because this post-dates the end date of my investigation. This is also when Ms Y had a right of appeal against the plan, which she used.
41. Taking account of the earlier period of missed provision, and the distress and time and trouble caused to Ms Y, I am satisfied the Council’s proposed payment is sufficient to remedy the injustice and we have not recommended anything further.

Back to top

Action

42. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will provide evidence to show it has:
• Apologised to Ms Y. 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 when making its apology.
• Made the proposed payment to Ms Y, as set out in paragraph 38 of this statement.
43. Within eight weeks of our final decision, the Council will also provide evidence of the service improvements as set out in paragraph 38 of this statement.

Back to top

Decision

44. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to implement the above actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman