Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to meet the legal timescales for completing an annual review of her son Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan and issuing an amended plan, and had poor communication and complaint handling. We find the Council at fault for missing the legal timescales and for poor communication. This caused frustration, uncertainty, delayed appeal rights and quantifiable loss of the cost of provision. The Council has agreed to apologise, reimburse the cost of provision and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about how the Council handled her son Y’s special educational needs. In particular she complains the Council:
1. Missed the legal deadlines to complete an annual review of Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and to issue an amended EHC Plan.
2. Had poor standards of communication when it gave misleading updates.
3. Had poor complaint handling when it inappropriately suggested she had used generative artificial intelligence (AI) to write messages.
2. She says the Council’s failings caused significant uncertainty, stress and frustration, diverted time from her parental and professional duties, lost educational provision, and incurred costs for professional assistance.

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 cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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 Tribunal in this decision statement.
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. 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.
8. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated the Council’s actions from 13 October 2024, when it should have completed an annual review, until 29 October 2025, when it responded to Mrs X’s stage three complaint.
10. Mrs X complained to us in November 2025. That means matters before November 2024 are late. The Council failed to complete actions it said it would do by certain dates, and Mrs X did not let the matter rest for any significant period of time. I have decided these are good reasons to exercise my discretion to investigate late matters from 13 October 2024.
11. I have not investigated any matters regarding Y’s special educational provision after 20 October 2025. This is because Mrs X had a right to appeal those matters to the Tribunal and I have decided it is reasonable for her to have used that right.
12. I have not investigated any other matters beyond the Council’s stage three response on 29 October 2025. This is because the law says councils should have the opportunity to consider complaints before the Ombudsman investigates.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Law and Guidance

EHC Plans and special educational provision

16. 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. 
17. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include Section F. This details the special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
18. 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)  

Reviewing EHC Plans

19. 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. Following the review meeting the council must issue a decision to either 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) 
20. 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

21. This is a summary of key events. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
22. Y has special educational needs. The Council issued his first EHC Plan on 13 October 2023.
23. The Council should have completed an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan by 13 October 2024. It should have done so by holding an annual review meeting and issuing a decision letter to Mrs X by that date.
24. The Council did not issue a decision letter by 13 October. It therefore did not meet the deadline.
25. Mrs X said she contacted the Council between January and March 2025. She sought updates on the annual review delay.
26. At the end of March, Mrs X wrote to the Council. She raised concerns it was not meeting its legal duties in handling Y’s special educational needs.
27. In early April the Council contacted Mrs X. It said it would check on the timeframe and keep her updated.
28. On 12 June Mrs X made a stage one formal complaint to the Council. She complained it had not met the legal timescales for the annual review.
29. On 24 June the Council issued its annual review decision letter. It notified Mrs X it had decided to amend Y’s EHC Plan.
30. On 26 June the Council responded to Mrs X’s stage one complaint. It accepted it had not met the annual review legal timescales.
31. The Council sent Mrs X a draft amended EHC Plan. Mrs X responded to the draft plan on 7 July. She explained she was not happy with some of the amendments.
32. In July and August Mrs X and the Council corresponded about proposed changes to Y’s EHC Plan. The Council said it would issue another draft amended EHC Plan by 15 August. It did not do so.
33. On 1 September Mrs X made a stage two formal complaint. She complained it had not issued a draft amended EHC Plan when it said it would.
34. On 24 September the Council responded to Mrs X’s stage 2 complaint. It acknowledged it had missed the legal timescales in amending Y’s EHC Plan. It upheld her complaint.
35. The Council issued another draft amended EHC Plan. Mrs X responded to the new draft EHC Plan on 7 October. She said she accepted the amendments. She asked the Council to issue a final EHC Plan as soon as possible.
36. On 14 October Mrs X made a stage three formal complaint. She complained about the Council’s continued failure to issue Y’s final EHC Plan.
37. On 16 October Mrs X chased the Council for a final EHC Plan. She reminded it the next annual review was due.
38. On 20 October the Council issued Y’s amended final EHC Plan.
39. On 29 October the Council responded to Mrs X’s stage 3 complaint. It summarised and upheld her complaints at all stages of the complaint process. It said it was extremely sorry for the annual review process and EHC Plan delays.

Analysis

40. I address each part of Mrs X’s complaint in order below.

a) Missed the legal deadlines to complete an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan and to issue an amended EHC Plan.

41. The Council’s statutory deadline for issuing its annual review decision was 13 October 2024. It did not meet the deadline. This was fault.
42. The fault caused significant injustice in the form of distress, uncertainty and delayed appeal rights had Mrs X disagreed with the decision.
43. I have decided I can make a finding, on the balance of probabilities, what the Council’s decision would have been had it met its deadline.
44. I have seen no evidence that significant new information arose between 13 October 2024 and June 2025 when the Council decided to amend Y’s EHC Plan. For this reason I find, on the balance of probabilities, the Council would have decided to amend Y’s EHC Plan by 13 October 2024 had it met its deadline.
45. On that basis, the Council should have issued Y’s amended final EHC Plan within eight weeks of its decision. This means the latest date by which the Council should have issued Y’s amended final EHC Plan was 8 December 2024. It did not do so. This was ongoing fault.
46. Had the Council issued Y’s amended EHC Plan by then, Mrs X would have had a right to appeal if she disagreed with it. The fault added different delayed appeal rights to the ongoing injustice of uncertainty and frustration.
47. I have considered whether the fault caused Y to lose special educational provision he would have received but for the fault.
48. There was new specific quantified special educational provision detailed in Section F of the amended EHC Plan issued in 2025. This included weekly speech and language therapy (SALT) sessions of a specified length. The therapy must be delivered by a therapist with specific training.
49. Those SALT sessions were originally recommended in a specialist’s report prepared in September 2024. The report was considered in an annual review meeting in October 2024. The Council then recorded the SALT sessions in a draft EHC Plan dated October 2024. The same SALT sessions are mirrored in Section F of the final EHC Plan issued in October 2025.
50. I have decided this evidence shows, on the balance of probabilities, the Council would have recorded the SALT sessions in Section F of Y’s final EHC Plan had it issued it by the deadline in December 2024. This means the Council would have had a duty to secure the SALT sessions for Y from 8 December 2024 but for its fault.
51. Mrs X has provided evidence she secured and paid for SALT sessions that matched those that the Council would have had a duty to secure but for its fault. I therefore do not find Y lost special educational provision. However, I do find the Council’s fault caused the injustice to Mrs X of the quantifiable loss of the cost of the SALT sessions from 8 December 2024.
52. The injustice of uncertainty, frustration, delayed appeal rights and quantifiable loss of the cost of SALT sessions continued until 20 October 2025 when the Council issued Y’s amended final EHC Plan. This was a total period of 53 weeks.
53. The Council accepted fault for its delay and apologised for the impact in its formal complaint response. The apology meets our expected standards of how organisations should apologise. Therefore I have decided not to recommend a further apology.
54. I have decided there is significant injustice remaining despite the Council’s apology. I therefore recommend the Council make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice of uncertainty, frustration and delayed appeal rights. I also recommend it reimburse Mrs X the cost of the SALT sessions she paid for.
55. Mrs X said she incurred costs because she engaged professional help in the matter. I acknowledge her explanation of her reasons for doing so. However, I do not find the Council's delay was a complex matter. I also note there are organisations that give free impartial advice and support about this type of complaint. For these reasons I have decided not to recommend the Council reimburse the professional costs.
56. I have decided not to make service improvement recommendations in this case. This is because the Council has previously provided an action plan for tackling similar faults across a similar period. I have decided further service improvement recommendations would create unnecessary duplication of actions being taken.

b) Had poor standards of communication when it gave misleading updates.

57. In early April the Council told Mrs X it would check the annual review timeframe and update her. It did not do so.
58. The Council told Mrs X it would issue an amended draft EHC Plan by 15 August. It did not do so.
59. Mrs X said the Council said it would check the status of the draft EHC Plan on 1 September. She said it did not provide a proper update afterwards.
60. I do not find the evidence demonstrates the Council was intentionally misleading in its communication. However, I find it failed to provide updates and take action when it said it would. I find this falls below an acceptable standard of communication. This was fault.
61. This caused injustice to Mrs X in the form of uncertainty and frustration. I recommend the Council apologise to remedy the injustice.

c) Had poor complaint handling when it inappropriately suggested she had used AI to write messages.

62. The Council referred to AI in its response to Mrs X’s stage three complaint.
63. It described an officer’s opinion that Mrs X had used AI to write proposed changes to Y’s draft EHC Plan, and other messages to the Council. It explained the officer’s opinion that this had caused some confusion. I find this could reasonably be understood as a suggestion that Mrs X contributed to some of the delay.
64. Mrs X explained to me why the reference to AI caused her frustration. She said she wrote a detailed written response to the first draft EHC Plan herself. She sent this to the Council on 7 July. It promised to provide a new draft EHC Plan based on her response. It did not do so. She felt the Council should have requested clarification if it was confused, not allow the process to stall. She found its reference to AI inappropriate because it diverted attention away from the issues.
65. I understand why Mrs X was not happy about the reference to AI. However, I have decided the Council’s stage three response presented the officer’s opinion about AI as one part of a general chronology of its investigation into her complaint. I do not find the Council stated, or implied, it found Mrs X did use AI or contributed to the delay. I find the Council’s conclusion in its stage three response demonstrated it took full responsibility for the delay.
66. For these reasons I have decided the Council’s reference to AI was not inappropriate. I therefore do not find it at fault for this part of her complaint.

Back to top

Action

67. Within 4 weeks of the date of my final decision the Council will:
1. Make a symbolic payment of £400 to Mrs X to remedy the uncertainty, frustration and delayed appeal rights caused by its failure to meet the legal timescales in completing the annual review and issuing the amended EHC Plan.
2. Reimburse Mrs X the £4,279.50 costs of the SALT sessions that the Council would have had a duty to secure but for its fault.
3. Apologise to Mrs X for the uncertainty and frustration caused by its poor communication.
68. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

69. I find fault causing injustice regarding the Council’s failure to meet the legal timescales in completing the annual review and issuing the amended EHC Plan, and for poor communication. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman