Summary: The Council accepted it delayed issuing an amended final Education, Health and Care Plan for Mr X’s child Y. The Council has proposed a payment to Mr X to recognise the impact of the delay, which is appropriate. The Council was not at fault in how it decided it would not arrange alternative provision for Y when Mr X withdrew Y from school. We cannot investigate Mr X’s later complaint about the suitability of Y’s alternative provision as the Council has not had an opportunity to respond to this complaint.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to secure the provision in his child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and failed to arrange suitable alternative education when Y could no longer attend school. Mr X also complained the Council delayed issuing a decision letter and amended EHC Plan following a review of Morgan’s EHC Plan. Mr X says this has resulted in Y missing out on their SEN provision and education, causing distress, frustration and uncertainty. Mr X wants the Council to apologise, secure a school placement for Morgan and the provision in their EHC Plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
5. 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)
6. 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

7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
8. The Council provided its final complaint response to Mr X’s complaint about the suitability of Y’s school in November 2025. Mr X has since raised concerns over the suitability of the alternative provision the Council put in place for Y from November 2025 onwards. I have not investigated this part of Mr X’s complaint as the Council has not had an opportunity to respond.

Back to top

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 have had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Education, Health and Care Plans

11. 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. 
12. 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). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
13. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

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. Following the review meeting the council must decide whether it proposes to keep the EHC Plan as it is, amend it, or cease to maintain it and notify the child’s parents or the young person and school or other institution attended. 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) 
15. 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.
16. 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

17. Mr X’s child, Y had an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan issued in November 2024, and attended School A. On 22 July 2025 an interim review of Y’s EHC Plan took place. School A was concerned over its ability to meet the current EHC Plan and requested a change to Y’s provision. The review recommended amendments to Y’s EHC Provision and education placement. It noted Mr X was open to exploring alternative education options and that Y was currently not able to learn at School A.
18. The Council’s SEN Panel considered the review recommendations on 28 August 2025 and agreed to look for a specialist setting for Y. Following this the Council consulted with 25 potential placements for Y. Every placement said it was either unsuitable for Y or could not meet their needs.
19. In September 2025, Y received temporary suspensions from School A for behavioural incidents. On 6 October 2025 Mr X emailed the Council to say he was withdrawing Y from School A. He said he wanted the Council to put alternative provision in place for Y. The Council responded saying School A could provide the provision in Y’s EHC Plan and there was no reason for Y not to attend.
20. Mr X complained to the Council on 15 October 2025. He said School A was not a suitable placement for Y and the Council’s view that it was suitable contradicted Y’s review. He said he wanted the Council to put immediate alternative education in place.
21. The Council met with Mr X and issued a stage one response to his complaint on 23 October 2025. It said Y remained on roll at School A, which was the school named in their EHC Plan. It said School A had suitable provision in place while the Council explored other options. Mr X remained unhappy and asked the Council to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaint process.
22. Y returned to School A in early November 2025 but was permanently excluded on 14 November 2025. The Council offered Y alternative provision with its provider. It says the provider could meet the requirements of Y’s EHC Plan, but Mr X refused to engage with the provision and Y never attended.
23. The Council responded to Mr X’s stage two complaint on 24 November 2025. The response appears to have overlapped with Y’s exclusion so did not address Y’s alternative provision. It said it had responded to all Mr X’s issues at stage one and that the provision in Y’s EHC Plan remained available at School A. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
24. The Council issued a final amended EHC Plan on 28 April 2026. It named Y’s type of placement as a resource centre attached to a mainstream school but did not name a placement. Mr X appealed the EHC Plan to the SEN Tribunal.
25. In response to our enquiries the Council said Y’s school place had remained open to them until they were excluded in November 2025, after which it made suitable alternative provision available. It accepted it delayed issuing Y’s amended EHC Plan following the July 2025 interim review and offered £500 to recognise the impact of the delay on Mr X and Y. The Council says it has since resolved the issues that led to the delay and carried out Y’s most recent annual review within the statutory timescale.

My findings

26. The Council carried out an interim review of Y’s EHC Plan on 22 July 2025, when Y’s school said it was struggling to meet Y’s needs. This was the appropriate step to review Y’s situation and decide a way forward. The review papers suggest the Council intended to amend Y’s EHC Plan and its SEN Panel agreed to explore alternative options. The Council accepts it failed to issue a decision following Y’s interim review and did not issue an amended EHC Plan until 28 April 2026. This was fault.
27. Despite the delay issuing the amended EHC Plan the Council consulted with 25 potential new placements for Y in August 2025, with no placement able to meet Y’s needs. While the delay caused Mr X uncertainty and frustration, on balance, I cannot say the Council would have been able to name an alternative placement for Y had it issued the amended plan within the statutory timescales.
28. During the delay Y continued to struggle at School A and Mr X withdrew them in October 2025, asking for alternative provision to be put in place. The Council considered Y’s case and concluded they remained on the roll at School A and the provision in Y’s EHC Plan remained available to Y. Y’s annual review accepted the Council needed to explore alternative placements, but no placement could meet Y’s needs. While it is clear an alternative placement would have been preferable, the Council was entitled to conclude School A was available to Y while it explored alternative placements and not immediately put alternative provision in place. The Council was not at fault in how it decided it did not owe Y the duty to arrange alternative provision, so I cannot question its decision.
29. When Y was expelled in November 2025 the Council arranged alternative provision from the sixth day of their exclusion. Mr X is unhappy with the suitability of this provision. As explained in paragraphs 7 and 8, I have not investigated this part of Mr X’s complaint as the Council has not had an opportunity to respond to it. It is open to Mr X to complain to the Ombudsman once the Council has responded to his concerns over the alternative provision.
30. The Council has offered Mr X £500 to recognise the impact of the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay issuing Y’s amended EHC Plan. I am satisfied with the proposed remedy, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
31. The Council has explained the steps it had taken to resolve the delays issuing the amended EHC Plan. Because the Council has already taken suitable steps, I have not made any service improvement recommendations. We will continue to monitor the Council’s progress through our casework.

Back to top

Action

32. Within one month of the final decision the Council should:
1. Apologise to Mr X for the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay issuing Y’s amended 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.
2. Pay Mr X the £500 it has proposed to recognise the impact of the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay issuing Y’s amended EHC Plan.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault causing injustice and am satisfied with the Council’s proposed remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman