Summary: The Council was at fault for not advising Mrs X of the concerns raised by her child, Y’s, school in its consultation response, for delays in amending Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan after an annual review and for delay in arranging provision when Y was out of school. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to acknowledge the frustration, uncertainty, delayed appeal rights and missed provision the faults caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was implemented properly so they received a suitable education. She says the Council delayed reviewing the EHC Plan and failed to provide adequate interim provision whilst it did so. It also unfairly withdrew its Rochdale Additional Needs Service (RANS) which left Y without vital support.
2. Mrs X says this has caused them distress and frustration and meant Y has missed out on education and was left without appropriate support which contributed to Y’s educational and physical decline.

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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
8. 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.
9. 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)
10. 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

11. Mrs X raised concerns about the way the school supported Y, particularly in relation to health matters, which she believed caused Y harm, and that the school breached its complaints procedure. As I have set out at paragraph five above, the law does not allow us to investigate internal school matters, so these are issues I cannot consider. If Mrs X believes Y was harmed or at risk of harm from the school’s actions, it is open to her to raise these as safeguarding concerns or as complaints through the school

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. I gave Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Law and guidance

Education, Health and Care Plans

14. 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 which include section F: the special education provision needed by the child and section I: the name/type of educational establishment. 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. 
15. If a child’s parent requests a particular mainstream school, the council must comply with that preference and name the school in the EHC Plan unless:
• it would be unsuitable for the age, aptitude or SEN of the child or young person or
• the attendance of the child or young person there would be incompatible with the efficient education of others or the efficient use of resources.
16. The council must consult the governing body, principal or proprietor of the school and consider their comments very carefully before deciding whether to name it in the child’s EHC Plan, sending the school a copy of the draft Plan. (s9.79-9.80 SEN Code of Practice)
17. 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)  

EHC Plan reviews

18. 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.
19. 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.

Elective home education

20. Parents have a right to educate their children at home (Section 7, Education Act 1996). This can include the use of tutors or parental support groups. Elective home education is distinct from education provided by a council otherwise than at school, for example when a child is too ill to attend. In choosing to educate a child at home, the parents take on financial responsibility for any costs involved, including examination costs.
21. Where councils agree that home education is the right provision for a child with an EHC Plan, the Plan should make clear that the child or young person will be educated at home. If it does then the council must arrange the special education provision set out in the Plan, working with the parents. In cases where the EHC Plan gives the name of a school or type of school where the child will be educated and the parents decide to educate at home, the council is not under a duty to make the special educational provision set out in the Plan provided it is satisfied that the arrangements made by the parents are suitable. (s10.31 to 10.32, SEND Code of Practice)

What happened

22. I have investigated what happened from when Y started at the secondary school in September 2024 until May 2026 when the Council issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan.
23. The following is a summary of the main events relevant to this complaint.
24. Y has a physical disability which affects their gross motor skills and impacts their bladder/bowel. In May 2024 the Council issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan naming a mainstream secondary school in section I from September 2024. The Plan noted Y was working at age related expectations across the curriculum but was working around three years behind in maths and writing. It noted Y used a walking frame or wheelchair.
25. Section F included that Y needed high levels of adult modelling, tasks to be introduced in a one-to-one context and support from a key adult in the classroom. Y required daily one-to-one reading, spelling and maths practice and weekly small group work to develop looking and listening skills. Y required support and supervision from staff to use their walking frame, to ensure Y could safely access all areas of the classroom environment and so Y could safely access the outside areas of school. Y also required monitoring to ensure their basic care needs including toileting needs were met, with three named key staff to support Y’s personal care needs.
26. Y started at the school in September 2024. In March 2025 the school arranged an annual review. This noted Y was below expected progress in areas including accessing the school environment as independently as possible, with concerns raised about Y’s awareness of risk, and Y was not completing their self-care routines appropriately and so had needed higher levels of support. It noted Y required an exceptional amount of supervision and intervention and Y’s independence levels were declining. It noted a significant decline in Y’s health and that Mrs X no longer felt mainstream was appropriate for Y and would like the Council to consult other schools.
27. In July 2025 Y stopped attending the school. Mrs X requested the Council arrange tuition. However, the Council did not agree to this as it considered the educational provision within Y’s Plan remained available at the school.
28. Mrs X complained to the Council. She said the school had told her it had repeatedly told the Council it could not meet Y’s needs when the Council was consulting with it to decide what school to name in Y’s May 2024 EHC Plan. Mrs X asked why the Council had overridden this and placed Y at the school. She complained the school demanded proof for every minor change in Y’s health care and had failed to adhere to Y’s EHC Plan. Mrs X said the breakdown in trust was irreparable and she requested an alternative setting.
29. The Council met with Mrs X and the school. Mrs X said she was not aware the school had advised the Council it could not meet Y’s needs when it responded to the consultation and felt the Council should have told them this. She said she would not send Y back to the school and she wanted Y to receive some tutoring.
30. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in August 2025. It said it could not comment on issues which were the school’s responsibility. It said it consulted the school as part of the annual review process and the school was the parental preference. It said the school expressed concerns about being named in Y’s Plan. However, the Council did not consider it met the threshold for unsuitability or incompatibility. It said reasonable adjustments and additional support should be considered before concluding it was unsuitable. It said the Rochdale Additional Needs Service (RANS – a school based support service which supports schools to support children with additional needs in mainstream education) had been working with Y and supported the placement at the school. The Council said it had updated the draft EHC Plan in response to the school’s concerns and consulted the school again. The school again raised concerns but the Council considered they did not meet the threshold for unsuitability or incompatibility so it named the school and finalised the Plan in May 2024. The Council said it was satisfied it had acted appropriately.
31. The Council said that to consider a change of placement Y would need an annual review and a review officer would contact her and the school to arrange this, make any necessary draft amendments to the Plan and begin the consultation process.
32. Mrs X asked to go to the next stage of the complaints procedure. She said she was not made aware that the school had reservations about admitting Y and she did not know why Y was discharged from RANS. She said she was not told RANS was no longer involved. She said she would not send Y back to the school.
33. The RANS service responded separately to Mrs X. It said that on successful completion of the transition work to support Y’s move to the school its ongoing input was no longer needed. It had discharged Y from its service in December 2024 as it was satisfied the school was meeting Y’s physical needs and training and advice was in place. It said it had written to the school to advise of this, summarising the work it had done, offering its involvement again if anything changed, and asking that the letter be shared with Y’s parents. It said it became involved again in February 2025 at the school’s request. It said it would review its process around getting the school to share the letter with parents as it recognised this was a weak spot in its process.
34. The Council sent Mrs X its stage two complaint response in September 2025. It reiterated its position about the suitability of the school and confirmed a review of Y’s EHC Plan would be arranged.
35. The Council met with the school in September 2025 and agreed tuition would be beneficial whilst Y was not attending school. The Council requested some costings from the school.
36. Mrs X remained unhappy and asked to go to the next stage of the complaints procedure. She said Y suffered harm. She said the school failed to implement Y’s EHC plan and at no stage was she told the school could not meet Y’s needs. She said the school demonstrated unsafe practices and she would not accept its involvement in Y’s future EHC Plans. Mrs X requested a timetable for consultations for a new school, confirmation of what interim provision would be made available and identification of who was accountable for the failures to date.
37. RANS responded separately to Mrs X. It said further investigation would not change the outcome and it had already addressed the concerns she raised. The Council response in October 2025 said:
• At the annual review in March 2025 no concerns were raised by her or the school about the implementation of Y’s EHC Plan. It said as the school was parental preference it had to name it unless it was deemed unsuitable or incompatible with the efficient education of others or the efficient use of resources. It said the thresholds were not met and neither the school or parent indicated at the annual review that the school could not meet Y’s needs; and
• With regards to unsafe practice it advised Mrs X to raise this with school or via the Council’s safeguarding procedure. It said if she had specific safeguarding concerns she should provide details to the school or Council so they could be addressed appropriately;
• It was actively working to secure a further appropriate placement for Y. In the meantime Y remained on roll at the school; and
• Concerns around the school’s complaints procedure or information provided by the school from a subject access request were outside the remit of the Council.
38. In early November 2025 the Council approved tuition for Y. It advised Mrs X the school was responsible for arranging this and for conducting safeguarding and attendance checks. Later that month the Council sent Mrs X a letter that it intended to amend Y’s EHC Plan. It issued a draft amended Plan in December 2025.
39. In January 2026 Mrs X told the school and Council that she wished for Y to be electively home educated as a temporary protective measure and for Y to be removed from the school’s roll. The Council agreed to continue to fund tuition of 10 hours a week and to consult specialist placements.
40. The Council issued Y’s final amended Plan in May 2026 which stated that Y was receiving elective home education. Mrs X has appealed the Plan.

Findings

The choice of school

41. Mrs X wanted Y to attend the school and the Council consulted with the school in line with its statutory requirements. When the school raised concerns, the Council considered these were not sufficient to make the school unsuitable. It was for the Council to decide whether there were reasonable steps the school could take to enable it to accept Y. However, the Council failed to make Mrs X aware of the concerns the school had raised or explain why it was satisfied these could be addressed. This was fault. I cannot say, even on balance, this would have affected the choice of school. However, finding the school’s concerns out at a later date caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty over whether she would have expressed a different preference had she known about this at the time.

RANS

42. The Council’s RANs service provided support and assistance to the school to aid Y’s transition. When it completed its work, and was satisfied Y had transitioned successfully and that Y’s personal development needs were being met by the school, it discharged Y from its service. There is no evidence of fault in the way it reached this decision. It then wrote to the school and requested that the letter be shared with Y’s parents. I do not know whether the school did this and I cannot investigate the school’s actions. However, RANS has recognised this is a weakness in its process which it will be looking to address in future. That is appropriate.

Review of the EHC Plan

43. We expect councils to follow statutory timescales set out in the law and the Code. We are likely to find fault where there are significant breaches of those timescales.
44. The school arranged Y’s annual review in March 2025. The meeting agreed Y’s EHC Plan required amending but the notes do not recommend that Y change schools. The Council should have issued an amendment notice, with details of what the proposed changes to the EHC Plan were, within four weeks of the annual review meeting. It should then have issued a final amended Plan within eight weeks of the amendment notice. It failed to do this, and this was fault. It did not issue an intention to amend letter until November 2025, significantly outside the four-week timescale set out in law and guidance. This delay caused Mrs X significant frustration and delayed her right of appeal to Tribunal.

Missed provision

45. When Y stopped attending school in July 2025 the Council decided the provision in Y’s EHC Plan was available through the school. It decided not to agree to tuition. There is no evidence of fault in the way it reached that initial decision.
46. However, following a meeting with Mrs X in July and with the school in September 2025, the Council agreed Y should receive tuition. This was not arranged until November 2025. This delay was fault and meant Y did not receive any provision between September and November 2025.
47. Where a child has an EHC Plan, councils are expected to try and secure as much of the section F provision as possible in the home. The Council agreed to fund 10 hours of one-to-one tuition. The law allows councils to view one-to-one provision as worth more than provision delivered in groups. Given the intensity of one-to-one learning and that parts of Y’s section F provision could not be effectively delivered outside of a school setting, there was no evidence of fault in the decision that 10 hours of one-to-one tuition was sufficient in the first instance.
48. In January 2026 Mrs X stated she was electively home educating Y and the school remained named in the plan until the Council issued a final amended Plan in May 2026. Mrs X therefore was responsible for Y’s education and meeting Y’s SEN needs between January and May 2026. The Council agreed, as an exceptional circumstance, to continue to provide tuition but it was no longer under a duty to secure the provision in the Plan. Mrs X is appealing the final Plan the Council issued in May 2026. It is for the Tribunal to consider what provision Y should receive and how this should be delivered.

Other cases

49. In 2025 we issued a decision on a separate complaint about this Council. It agreed to produce an action plan which detailed the steps it would specifically take to meet its statutory timescales for issuing decisions after an annual review meeting and for issuing EHC Plans after annual reviews. I have therefore not considered it necessary to make a further service improvement recommendations on this case. However, we will continue to monitor the Council’s performance through our casework.

Back to top

Agreed Action

50. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and pay her £1000 to acknowledge Y’s half a term of missed provision, the frustration and uncertainty caused to her by the Council’s failure to advise her of the adverse consultation responses, and her delayed appeal rights. 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.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman