Summary: Ms X complains the Council delayed consulting with residential placements for her son. Ms X also says the Council failed to communicate with her effectively. We find fault with the annual review process and this caused Ms X uncertainty. The Council’s communication was inconsistent, and this caused Ms X distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy this injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council delayed consulting with residential placements for her son, Y. Ms X also says the Council failed to communicate with her effectively.
2. Ms X says the matter has caused her distress and uncertainty and a constant worry for Y’s safety. She says Y has also missed out on receiving the content of his Education and Health Care (EHC) Plan.

Back to top

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. 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).
5. 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 have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated matters in this case from 25 March 2025 to 17 September 2025, when Ms X bought this complaint to us. Ms X says the issues are ongoing, but I have not investigated matters after this point, as they are considered as a new complaint and Ms X would need to complain to the Council in the first instance.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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

EHC needs reassessment

9. An EHC reassessment is a formal 14-week process to update a child's EHC Plan when their needs change significantly. Parents can request this if the current plan is inadequate, usually starting with a written request to the Council. The Council must respond within 15 calendar days and can be appealed if they refuse.
10. If the Council refuses a request for reassessment, parents have the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Annual review

11. 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. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to 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) 
12. 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.
13. 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.

What happened

14. This is a summary of events outlining key facts, and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
15. Y has special educational needs and an EHC Plan. In March 2025 the Council received a request from Ms X to complete a re-assessment of needs for Y. The Council said that an annual review of Y’s plan was due and required amendment for key stage changes.
16. An annual review of Y’s EHC Plan was completed in June 2025. It was noted there had been a significant escalation of Y’s complex behavioural needs and neither his current school or family were able to consistently ensure the safety of Y and those around him. To address this, a residential school placement was requested to provide consistent specialist support and a therapeutic environment.
17. South Quadrant Resource Panel (QRP) agreed emergency funding for Y’s current school to support his needs. Funding was agreed at Band 10, to provide additional staff and opportunities to support exceptional provision to Y’s needs and maintain safety for Y, his peers and staff. The record states a reassessment of need was not agreed, however, the EHC Plan required amending to reflect Y’s change in needs.
18. QRP decided a specialist day school (School B) would be appropriate, but this was eventually deemed unsuitable for Y. As a result, Y’s case was considered for a high-cost placement and Independent Non-Maintained Special School (INMSS) search. This was agreed on 11 July.
19. On 14 July Ms X complained to the Council. Ms X said once the Council had accepted that Y’s current school was unsuitable it has failed to act with appropriate urgency. Ms X said there had been avoidable delays in submitting necessary documentation to panel as well as unacceptable postponement in consulting the schools she specifically requested. Ms X said these delays appeared to contravene statutory duties and risked Y missing the September intake for a suitable educational placement.
20. Ms X added the Council had declined to seek an independent school placement, stating the intention to consult School B instead. Ms X said School B had confirmed it could not meet Y’s complex needs and his current provision had also demonstrably failed to do so.
21. Between 18 July and 22 July, the Council sent seven consultations to independent specialist schools requesting a placement for Y. On 24 July, the Council received one response stating it could not meet Y’s needs.
22. On 25 July, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint. The Council explained Y’s case was discussed at panel where a decision was made to approach School B regarding a bespoke package for Y. The Council acknowledged parental choice but said it must exhaust all local provision in the first instance. The Council confirmed it had agreed to carry out an independent school search for Y.
23. In late August, Ms X contacted the Council requesting an update on the consultations. The Council said there was no further update due to summer holidays.
24. On 10 September, Ms X complained to the Council again. Ms X said following considerable delay and only after escalation to senior management a residential school search was finally agreed in July 2025. Ms X said this delay was unjustifiable given the clear and urgent need for a more suitable placement and the lack of viable alternatives within Essex.
25. Ms X said she had been advised that consultation had been sent to six specialist schools. Ms X said responses had been received from two schools and when she requested an update from the Council she was told the delays were due to the summer holidays. Ms X said she was disappointed the Council had failed to keep her informed about consultations and responses it had received and she had to chase for updates.
26. On 14 September, the Council received five outstanding responses, either they could not meet Y’s needs or a place was unavailable
27. On 17 September, the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint and confirmed it had consulted with seven schools. The Council said it did not consult with one school as the school advised the Council they no longer offered residential placements. The Council apologised for not communicating this sooner.
28. The Council said it had previously referred Ms X to Section 9.42 of the SEND Code of Practice, where there are exceptional circumstances, it may not be reasonable to expect local authorities and other partners to comply with the 15 calendar days to consider and provide views on a draft EHC Plan and ask for a particular school or other institution to be named in it. The Council said exceptional circumstances included where, the educational institution was closed for at least 4 weeks.
29. On the same day, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Consultations with specialist schools

30. The Council acknowledged Ms X’s request for a reassessment of need for Y and explained an annual review was due. There are no statutory timescales for completing an early review, but it is reasonable to expect the Council to act promptly upon receiving evidence of urgent need. The annual review took place 12 weeks after Ms X requested a reassessment.
31. Following the annual review in June and the notes of the QRP it was acknowledged that Y’s EHC Plan required amendment. The Council agreed to find a specialist residential placement for Y, and this should have been recorded in an amended EHC Plan. The Council should have issued an amended Plan by 8 September 2025. The Council did not amend the Plan. This is fault. It is not clear why the Council did not issue an amended Plan, however, based on the evidence I have seen Ms X had a reasonable expectation the Council would look for an independent placement for Y.
32. The Council decided to consult with School B. Ms X disagrees with this decision and says it delayed consultations with independent schools. The Council has explained its rationale for consulting with School B as set out in paragraph 22 above. I do not find fault in the way it reached this decision.
33. The Council consulted with specialist schools in mid-July and Ms X was involved in the process. The Council did not receive a response from the consultations until mid-September, after the summer holiday period. I understand the delay was frustrating for Ms X and caused her uncertainty, however I do not find fault with the Council here as the schools were closed for more than four weeks.
34. I have carefully considered whether the faults identified caused Ms X and/or Y an injustice. Even if the Council had completed the annual review sooner and issued an EHC Plan on time, it would not have changed the outcome, that Y was not in a specialist setting. This is because despite sending multiple consultations, an offer of placement for Y has still not been secured. Therefore, I cannot say but for the Council’s faults a placement would have been secured sooner for Y.
35. I recognise the Council had secured Band 10 funding for Y’s current school to support his needs. This is the highest level of individual pupil funding associated with EHC Plan Top up in Essex. Therefore, for the period I am investigating, Y did have access to 1:1 support and additional provision.
36. However, the delay in completing the annual review caused Ms X significant distress as she was constantly worried about Y’s wellbeing and safety. Ms X is also left with the uncertainty of not knowing whether the additional funding could have been agreed and implemented before June 2025, if the Council had completed the annual review sooner. I have made recommendations below to reflect this.

The Council’s communication

37. The Council’s communication with Ms X was inconsistent. It did not regularly update Ms X with its progress as it told her it would. This is fault and meant Ms X continued to chase the Council for updates, causing her distress. I have made a recommendation below to reflect this.
38. The Council said the delays and communication difficulties were due to caseload carried by team officers. We have made service improvement recommendations on other cases where we have identified similar fault by the Council. I have therefore not made any further service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Action

39. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:

a) apologise to Ms X;

b) pay Ms X £300 for the uncertainty and distress caused by the delay in completing the annual review and poor communication.

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

Back to top

Decision

41. I find fault with the Council causing injustice to Ms X. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman