Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delay in issuing his daughter’s final Education Health and Care Plan following its Annual Review. We found the Council at fault. The Council’s fault caused injustice to Mr X as for many months he could not challenge the Council’s position on his daughter’s school placement. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise Mr X’s distress. The Council has already introduced an Action Plan to address its delays with the Annual Review process.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained about the Council’s failure to find a suitable placement for his daughter (Y) following an Annual Review of her Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan in November 2024. The Council, he said, had also failed to issue Y’s amended EHC Plan.
2. Mr X said the Council’s failings had meant that Y had remained in an unsuitable setting, isolated from her peers and falling further behind academically. He spent much time chasing the Council for updates and was distressed by the continuing delay. Mr X said the Council’s failings had affected the whole family.

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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
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)
7. 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

8. I have not investigated whether the Council should have offered Y a place in a special school following the Annual Review meeting in November 2024. It is for the Council to decide which school should be named in Section I of a child’s EHC Plan. If there is a dispute parents can challenge the Council’s decision by appealing to the SEND Tribunal.

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

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 discontinue 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. 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.
13. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against the description of a child or young person’s special educational needs (SEN) (Section B), the special educational provision specified (Section F), the school or placement (Section I) or that no school or other placement is specified and amendments to these elements of an EHC Plan.

What happened

14. In March 2024 Y’s EHC Plan was converted to the Council’s format after the family had moved to the Council’s area. The Council named a mainstream primary school (School 1) in Section I of Y’s EHC Plan.
15. In the third week of November 2024 School 1 carried out a review of Y’s EHC Plan. School 1 explained it could no longer meet Y’s needs as Y found classrooms too noisy and had to be educated individually. School 1 and Y’s parents agreed that Y needed a specialist placement.
16. Four weeks later the Council told Y’s parents it would amend Y’s EHC Plan. It acknowledged the change of placement request and said it would consider it at a panel meeting as soon as possible.
17. In mid-January 2025 School 1 sent a change of placement form to the Council.
18. In March and April 2025 Mr X contacted the Council a few times asking for updates. In mid-May he complained about the Council’s delay in finding a specialist placement for Y.
19. The Council upheld this complaint at the end of May 2025.
20. At the beginning of July Mr X asked the Council to consider his complaint at stage two. The Council sent him its stage two complaint response in mid-August. The Council said:
• referring Y’s change of placement request to the panel was delayed because of the absence of Y’s case officer. Due to capacity issues the case was not passed to another officer. The Council apologised;
• consideration of Y’s change of placement by the panel in mid-May led to a decision to seek extra professional advice. This would take up to six weeks from sending a referral;
• the Council was aware of its continuing duty to ensure Y received provision included in Section F of her EHC Plan.
21. Mr X brought his complaint to us in October.
22. At the beginning of November 2025 the Council issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan with School 1 named in Section I.
23. A few days later School 1 reviewed Y’s EHC Plan. The review meeting notes included comments about Y working a few years behind her peers and working mostly outside classroom. Y’s parents reiterated their preference for a specialist setting for her. To avoid two subsequent changes of placements which Y could not cope with, her parents asked for a special school which would include secondary provision.

Analysis

24. In the third week of November 2024 the Council sent Mr X its decision it would amend Y’s EHC Plan. This was four weeks after the Annual Review meeting, so in line with the statutory timescales.
25. The Council should have sent Y’s final amended EHC Plan to Mr X within eight weeks from mid-December 2024, so by mid-February 2025. This happened at the beginning of November 2025.
26. The delay of eight and a half months in issuing Y’s final amended EHC Plan is fault.
27. The Council’s fault did not cause injustice to Y as in the final amended EHC Plan issued in November 2025 the Council still named School 1. The main amendment proposed at the Annual Review in November 2024 was a change of placement for Y from mainstream to special. The Council, however, did not change its position on Y’s educational placement so her situation would have been the same even if the Council had issued Y’s EHC Plan within the statutory timescales.
28. This fault caused, however, injustice to Mr X as at the review meeting he asked the Council to find a special school for Y. He considered School 1 could not meet Y’s needs and she was falling further behind with her learning. School 1 shared this opinion. Mr X was distressed by the Council’s delay to consider his request for a change. For many months he could not challenge the Council’s position through an appeal as the Council failed to issue Y’s final amended EHC Plan. Mr X spent much time asking the Council for updates and explaining Y’s difficulties at School 1.
29. Although in its responses the Council upheld or partly upheld Mr X’s complaint and apologised, the delay in issuing Y’s final EHC Plan continued. This increased Mr X’s distress.

Service improvement

30. In July 2025 the Council introduced an Action Plan to improve compliance with the statutory timescales when reviewing EHC Plans.
31. The events of this complaint happened at the same time as introducing the Action Plan. We recognise the Council needs some time to address its failings identified in this investigation. We will monitor the effectiveness of the Council’s actions through our casework.

Back to top

Action

32. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, we recommend the Council complete within four weeks of the final decision the following:
• apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused to him by the fault identified. 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;
• pay Mr X £750 to recognise the distress caused to him by the Council’s failing to comply with the Annual Review statutory timescales.

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

Back to top

Decision

33. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has accepted my recommendations, so this investigation is at an end.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman