Summary: The Council was at fault because of a significant delay in reviewing the reissuing the complainant’s education, health and care plan. It has agreed to formally apologise and offer a financial remedy to address the impact of this delay.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mr B. Mr B is represented in his complaint by his mother, Ms H.
2. Ms H complains the Council significantly delayed carrying out an annual review of Mr B’s education, health and care (EHC). This meant he went for a long period without an up-to-date plan, causing distress and frustration.

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. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms H and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. Mr B has a learning disability and is subject to an EHC plan. He started a placement at a post-16 college in September 2024, and for this reason, the law says the Council should have completed a review of his EHC plan by 31 March of that year, including issuing an amended plan if necessary.
8. In April 2025 Ms H submitted a complaint to the Council. She said the review of Mr B’s plan was still outstanding, more than a year after the Council should have completed it. She noted the Council had “renewed” the plan in March 2024, in order to meet its target, but had not carried out a review of the plan or discussed it with any of the relevant parties.
9. Ms H said that, in March 2025, she had agreed to attend a review meeting, but this was carried out without contributions from education providers, including Mr B’s college, or from Mr B himself. She also said the Council did not know which college Mr B was attending, despite the fact she had informed the Council of this several times.
10. Ms H complained the Council still had not issued a “report from the review”, or notified her of any intention to amend the plan. She said she had received a draft plan, but that this did not reflect what had been discussed in the review meeting. She reiterated the Council had not sought Mr B’s input as part of the review, and described the distress she had experienced from repeatedly having to chase the Council about it.
11. The Council responded in May. It apologised it had not held the review in March 2024 when it was due. The Council said a review meeting had originally been arranged for 27 March 2024, but then rescheduled to 7 May. It had amended the EHC plan anyway in March, simply to ensure the wording reflected Mr B’s transition to post-16 education, and in order to meet the statutory deadline of 31 March.
12. The Council confirmed it had then issued the amended plan, but acknowledged it had not given Ms H the opportunity to comment on it, as she was entitled to.
13. The Council apologised it had not involved Mr B’s college in the review. It explained it had contacted the college, but the college had said it could not provide any information because Ms H had secured the placement there without the Council’s involvement. The Council said it had now completed a formal consultation with the college, which had confirmed it could meet Mr B’s needs.
14. The Council said it had also contacted Mr B to seek his views on the plan, but had not yet received a response from him. It explained how Mr B and Ms H could provide their comments on the plan through its ‘EHC hub’.
15. In October the Council issued a final, amended version of Mr B’s EHC plan.

Back to top

Analysis

16. The law says a person should approach us within 12 months of becoming aware of the issue they wish to complain about. A complaint about something older than this is late, and the law says we should not investigate it.
17. In this case, the Council should have completed the review of Mr B’s EHC plan (including the issue of a finalised amended plan) by 31 March 2024. But Ms H made her complaint to us in September 2025, more than a year later, and so I cannot investigate or make any findings on the Council’s original efforts to meet the deadline.
18. Even accepting this, the Council had still not carried out a review or issued an amended plan by September 2024, the period that is in time for my investigation. This represented an ongoing fault by the Council, one it did not fully resolve for more than another year. The Council added to this fault by not consulting with certain relevant parties, including Mr B himself when it finally did carry out the review in March 2025.
19. Although this is a significant fault, I cannot meaningfully quantify the impact this had on Mr B. Ms H says he struggled to maintain his college placement, because his EHC plan did not include the 1:1 support he needed; but to make a finding on this basis would require me to decide what provision should have been included in Mr B’s plan, which we do not have the power to do. Ms H also says, as a result of other faults by the Council, the college has now had to terminate Mr B’s placement, but this is a new matter which did not fall into the scope of the complaint I have investigated.
20. Therefore, the injustice arising from this fault is the general frustration and uncertainty it caused, particularly to Mr B, and the effort Ms H had to make to repeatedly chase the Council for such a length of time.
21. Our guidance on remedies says we will normally recommend a payment of up to £500 for this type of injustice, depending on the precise circumstances. In this case, I consider the Council should offer Mr B £400, and a further £300 to Ms H, to remedy their injustice.
22. Separately, I also consider the Council should write a formal letter of apology to both Mr B and Ms H, to recognise the impact on them of its failure to review and reissue Mr B’s EHC plan.

Back to top

Action

23. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council should:

• write a formal letter of apology to Mr B and Ms H, to recognise the impact on them of its failure to review and reissue Mr B’s EHC plan. 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; and
• offer to pay Mr B £400, and Ms H £300, for the same reason.

24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman