Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s actions related to her son, Y’s, education. We found the Council failed to provide Y with specialist education provision he was due, failed to adequately communicate with Miss X and failed to handle her complaints within the terms of its policy. This caused Miss X and Y avoidable distress and frustration and meant Y missed out on education he was due. To remedy this injustice, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X and remind officers of relevant duties to deliver special education.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains of the Council’s actions linked to the annual review of her son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and his education. Specifically, she complains:
• the Council took too long to issue its decision about Y’s plan after the annual review which then delayed her appeal rights;
• it was too slow to respond to her complaints;
• its communication was poor; and
• it failed to deliver provision specified in his plan.
2. Miss X says this caused her avoidable distress and frustration and delayed appeal rights linked to the Council’s decision to cease her son’s EHC Plan. She also says Y has missed out on education he was due.

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. 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. My investigation begins when the Council received the annual review paperwork for Y’s EHC Plan on 6 May 2025.
7. My original intention was to end my investigation in October 2025 when Miss X brought her complaint to us.
8. However, I have exercised discretion to continue my investigation up to June 2026. I have therefore included a more recent linked complaint about the Council’s failure to deliver the Section F provision specified in Y’s EHC Plan. The Council sent its final response about this in June 2026. I will deal only with the Section F aspect of Miss X’s 2026 complaint to the Council, not any other matters.
9. I will not investigate the decision to cease Y’s EHC Plan as this is a matter which can be appealed to the Special Educational Needs (SEN) and Disabilities Tribunal (the Tribunal).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Miss X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Special educational needs

12. A child with SEN may have an EHC Plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections.
13. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act (S42)). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable.

Reviewing EHC Plans

14. 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.
15. Within four weeks of the review meeting, the council must decide whether it proposes to amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. It must then notify the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
16. 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.
17. 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. (SEN Code paragraph 9.209)

What happened

18. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
19. Y is a young adult with SEN. He had an existing EHC Plan in place at the beginning of my investigation. This had last been finalised in October 2024. Section I of the plan specified he attend a local specialist education college – College A. The plan was designed to be delivered in college and by adults with appropriate training for his diagnoses. Some of this curriculum was designed to be delivered by a speech and language therapist.
20. Amongst other things, Section F of Y’s EHC Plan specified he should receive:
• a personalised curriculum using visual cues and appropriately levelled language for him;
• support for communication and interaction;
• support for daily living skills;
• a specialist sensory environment supported through one-to-one and group speech and language therapy (SALT); and
• education in smaller class sizes.

2025

21. Y’s EHC Plan was due to be reviewed by early June 2025. College A held the review earlier than this at the beginning of April 2025.
22. College A sent the annual review paperwork to the Council on 6 May 2025. Miss X emailed the Council the same day to ask what was happening.
23. Miss X emailed the Council on 12 May to complain and chase a response to the annual review. She was unhappy that despite College A having done the review, she had still not received the Council’s decision on what would happen with Y’s EHC Plan next. The Council acknowledged her complaint.
24. Miss X chased the Council about her complaint on 30 May. The Council sent a letter directly to Y that day. This advised the Council was considering ending his EHC Plan because it thought Y would be leaving education at the end of the academic year. It asked him to contact it if he wanted to discuss matters. Miss X later emailed the Council to indicate she would make contact.
25. The Council called Miss X on 10 June to explain the process for ceasing Y’s plan.
26. At the beginning of July, Miss X again chased the Council for a response to her complaint.
27. At the end of July and still with no complaint response, Miss X submitted another complaint to the Council. She said Y had an EHC Plan but was now without an education setting. She asked for an immediate review of the plan as April’s review did not have appropriate professionals involved or consider Y’s views and aspirations. Miss X said College A had incorrectly assumed someone completing their internship would automatically end an EHC Plan.
28. On the same date, the Council discussed consent related concerns with Miss X as she was acting on his behalf. On 1 August the Council called Miss X to say it was dealing with her complaint and a letter would be sent in the next week.
29. The Council sent Y a letter on 7 August. This said it had decided to end his EHC Plan because he was leaving education at the end of the academic year (July 2025). It advised him of appeal rights and said he should make contact if he disagreed or needed further information.
30. The Council sent its stage one response to Miss X on 19 August. This said:
• the Council should have realised the review paperwork had been sent late to it and should have acted more swiftly in that case;
• there had been confusion over the cease process and the complaint and an officer had contacted Miss X to discuss, but;
• that Y could stop the cease process by contacting the Council to advise it of his next ‘educational steps’.
31. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s process a few days later.
32. In September, Miss X registered her appeal with the Tribunal about the Council’s decision to cease Y’s EHC Plan.
33. The Council sent its stage two final complaint response on 3 October. In this, it said:
• it apologised for the response being sent late;
• it would remind College A of its duty to send the review paperwork in a timely manner;
• it had suffered from staffing issues but that the inclusion officer had discussed the decision to cease with her in June 2025; and
• that College A was of the view Y was ready to step into paid employment.
34. Miss X then brought her complaint to us.

2026

35. Miss X made a further complaint to the Council in March 2026. She was unhappy the Council was not delivering the Section F content of Y’s EHC Plan. The Council went through its complaint process and issued the final stage two response on 24 June 2026. In this, it:
• apologised for the significant delay in sending the response;
• confirmed that it had a duty under S42 to deliver Section F provision to Y;
• said there was no practical mechanism for it to deliver Section F if he was not in an educational placement;
• confirmed the EHC Plan must remain in force until the Tribunal made its decision about the Council’s intention to cease Y’s plan; and
• signposted Miss X to the Ombudsman.

Analysis

Issuing an EHC Plan decision after Y’s annual review

36. College A did not send the review paperwork to the Council until 6 May 2025. The Council cannot be held responsible for any delay in College A sending the paperwork.
37. When the Council received the review paperwork, it had four weeks to tell Y what its proposal was, which was 3 June 2025. The Council sent Y a letter dated 30 May 2025 to say it was considering ceasing his EHC Plan. In the circumstances of this complaint, I am satisfied the Council acted within the required timescales after it received the late paperwork. I find no fault in its actions in issuing the letter about proposing to cease the plan.
38. In circumstances where the Council had planned to amend the EHC Plan, we would expect the process to be concluded within 12 weeks of the review meeting. On that basis, and in the circumstances of this complaint, I am satisfied it is reasonable that the Council should have concluded the cease process within 12 weeks of receiving the review paperwork. The Council issued the decision to cease on 7 August 2025. This meant its overall time to reach a formal decision after it received the annual review paperwork was 13 weeks and 2 days. Whilst this is fault, I do not consider this small delay caused Miss X or Y a significant injustice.
39. In response to my draft decision, Miss X made comments the Council was aware earlier than 6 May 2025 that the annual review had been held in April. Miss X therefore questioned the amount of delay and the level of injustice caused. Even if this were the case, the maximum delay in issuing the decision to cease would have been six weeks over the allowed 12 weeks. The Ombudsman’s view is that that a delay under eight weeks would not have caused a significant injustice. Therefore, there would be no change to the finding of fault in my decision.

Stage one complaint response 2025

40. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had received a stage one complaint from Miss X on 31 July 2025. Whilst this is correct, Miss X originally contacted the Council on 12 May, clearly unhappy. This is noted in internal Council records and categorised as a complaint. Records show it was acknowledged as such the same day.
41. Whilst the Council acknowledged May’s complaint and communicated with Miss X about some of the issues raised in it over the coming period, it appears to have answered both the May and July complaints in the same response sent to Miss X on 19 August 2025.
42. The Council should have sent a formal response to Miss X within 10 working days of receiving her complaint. If it needed more time, it should have advised her and responded within a further 10 working days at the latest. The Council took 70 working days to respond to her original complaint. This response was also 13 days after the second complaint was made, so neither of these were in time.
43. Not responding to Miss X’s stage one complaint within its published timescales was fault. This caused Miss X significant and avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Stage two complaint response 2025

44. When Miss X escalated her complaint in August 2025, the Council should have sent its response within 20 working days which was 22 September 2025, or advised it needed longer to reply. The Council did neither. It was only after Miss X chased on 27 September that the Council responded to say it needed more time and would respond by 3 October 2025. It sent the response as indicated.
45. I acknowledge the Council apologised in the stage two response for the delay in sending it. However, not advising Miss X it would need longer to respond at the 20-working day point was fault. The Council’s policy also states if it requires an extension, it will provide the complainant with the Ombudsman’s details at that point. This did not happen and was also fault.
46. Overall, I am satisfied the Council did not handle Miss X’s stage two escalation appropriately or within the boundaries set in its own policy. This was further complaint related fault. It caused Miss X further avoidable distress and frustration. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.
47. The Council has recently put an action plan in place linked to timeliness of its complaint handling and so I will make no further recommendation linked to this.

Poor communication 2025

48. Miss X complained of poor communication overall. In its 2025 stage one response to her, the Council said an officer had contacted her to explain the cease process. The Council’s 2025 stage two response echoed this but added that there were significant staffing shortages during the period. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had responded to parental concerns through phone calls and emails.
49. Miss X sent the Council an email at the beginning of May 2025 asking what was happening with the annual review process. When she did not receive a response to this, she complained on 12 May. Although the Council acknowledged the complaint there was no contact about the review progress, so she chased again at the end of the month. By this time, she had received no word about the review decision, no response to her emails asking what was happening and no response to her complaint.
50. Miss X then queried again about the response on 4 June. She chased the Council again for a response on 4 July and finally on 30 July before making a second linked complaint on 31 July.
51. There was a single phone call from the Council to Miss X to discuss the cease proposal on 10 June and a phone call and email from the Council on 30 July. The majority of contact between Miss X and the Council between May and October 2025 was initiated by Miss X. This was usually because she felt nothing had progressed, had not had responses to her chases and was still waiting for her complaint response.
52. I am satisfied that overall and during the period of May to October 2025, the Council’s communication was not as good as it should have been. It allowed things to drift often leaving Miss X unsure of what was happening. This was fault. It caused Miss X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Section F provision

53. In response to my enquiries and in its June 2026 stage two response to Miss X, the Council took the stance that whilst it does have an S42 duty to deliver Section F provision to Y, it cannot do so because he was not attending an educational placement.
54. The Council said that until the Tribunal makes a decision about whether to cease the plan or not, the duty to deliver Section F is still in place. I agree with the Council’s stance on this.
55. However, I do not agree with the Council’s stance that it cannot deliver Section F provision because Y is not in an educational placement. Because the S42 duty is still in place, we expect the Council to secure provision in an alternative way until the Tribunal has made its decision. Not attempting to deliver any Section F provision from September 2025 to June 2026 was fault. This caused avoidable distress and frustration to Miss X. It meant Y was without the specialist provision the Council had a duty to secure. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

56. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Miss X and Y for the identified injustice;
• make a symbolic payment to Miss X of £300 to recognise the injustice caused by the poor communication and time and trouble in progressing her complaints;
• make a symbolic payment to Miss X of £1200 to remedy the lack of Section F provision for Y from September 2025 to June 2026; and
• take action to ensure officers are aware of the duty to continue providing Section F provision when ceasing a plan and the relevant circumstances apply
57. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
58. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

60. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman