Summary: The Council was at fault for not issuing the final amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for Ms X’s child (C), within statutory timescales following the Annual Review. The Council agreed to remedy the distress this caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council delayed issuing its decision to amend the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and the final amended EHC Plan for her child, C, following the Annual Review. This caused uncertainty for C and distress for her family. She would like the Council to issue the EHC Plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
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. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Ms 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

The Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan 

7. 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 the Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan

8. 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. 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) 
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.

What happened

12. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
13. C attends mainstream primary school with support from an EHC Plan.
14. The School held an annual review at the beginning of April 2025.
15. At the beginning of July, Ms X complained to the Council. She said the Council failed to meet the four-week statutory timeframe to issue a decision to either amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan.
16. The Council issued a stage one response in early August. The Council upheld Ms X’s complaint. It explained that due to an administrative error, the School delayed sharing the paperwork from the annual review meeting with the Council.
17. The Council apologised for the delay in the annual review process and for any frustration and distress caused. It said it had contacted the School and asked it to share the documents so it could decide whether to amend the EHC Plan.
18. Ms X asked for a stage two investigation in early August 2025. The Council sent a response in the middle of August which said it had addressed the complaint at stage one and to complain to the Ombudsman if she was not satisfied.
19. The Council issued its decision to amend the EHC Plan in late September 2025 and a draft copy of the amended plan.
20. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman at the beginning of October 2025.
21. The Council issued a final EHC Plan in the middle of October 2025.
22. In response to my enquiries, the Council apologised for its failure to meet the statutory deadlines in completing the annual review process. The Council explained the delay was partly caused by issues with its electronic case management system and an unanticipated increase in staff absences. The Council considered there was no loss of educational provision for C as the educational placement and section F provision remained the same. The Council explained it is working within a SEND alternative provision strategy and development plan to improve this service.

Analysis

23. The annual review meeting took place at the beginning of April 2025. The Council should have decided if it was going to amend the EHC Plan within four weeks of the meeting, by the beginning of May 2025. In its complaint response in August 2025, the Council accepted there was delay in the annual review process. At this point, the Council had delayed making the decision by around three months. This was fault which the Council accepted in its complaint response.
24. The Council should have issued the final EHC Plan within a further eight weeks, at the beginning of July 2025. The Council issued the final EHC Plan in late September 2025. This was a delay of around two months. This was fault. This caused uncertainty for Ms X as she did not know what provision the amended EHC Plan would contain.
25. The Council has now issued the final EHC Plan which limits any further injustice. The amended plan did not significantly change any of C’s provision. C did not miss any provision while waiting for the Council to update the plan.
26. The Council has reconfigured the case management system to prevent similar issues arising in the future. It has also recruited new staff and restructured the service to increase capacity and is working within its SEND and Alternative Provision Plan. We will continue to monitor this through our casework. I do not need to recommend any service improvements.

Back to top

Action

27. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise and pay Ms X £200 for the distress caused for the delay in completing the annual review process and issuing the final EHC Plan.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman