Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete and annual review by issuing her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan on time and did not adequately respond to her formal complaints. We find the Council at fault for its delays in issuing an Education, Health and Care Plan, and in responding to Mrs X’s complaints. This caused uncertainty, frustration, delayed appeal rights and time and trouble. The Council will apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
1. Failed to complete an annual review and issue her son Y’s amended final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within the statutory deadline.
2. Took too long to respond to her formal complaints.
3. Included inaccurate information in its formal complaint responses.
2. She says the Council’s failings caused distress, uncertainty and delayed her right to appeal to the Tribunal.

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. 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.
5. 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)
6. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
7. 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

8. I have investigated parts a) and b) from March 2025. This was when Y’s School held an annual review meeting.
9. I have investigated part a) until May 2025. This was when the Council issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan and Mrs X appealed to the Tribunal.
10. I have investigated part b) until December 2025. This was when the Council issued its stage two complaint response. I have decided the length of time it took the Council to respond to Mrs X’s complaints was not connected to her appeal. I therefore can investigate this part in line with paragraph 6.
11. I have not investigated part c) of Mrs X’s complaint. I have also not investigated concerns Mrs X raised about how the Council consulted with schools to see if they would offer Y a place. This is because I have decided those matters are connected to her appeal. I therefore cannot investigate in line with paragraph 6.

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. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
14. 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 about EHC Plans and annual reviews

15. 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.
16. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include Section I: The name and/or type of educational placement. We cannot direct changes to the sections about the needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 
17. 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.
18. 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) 
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). 
20. 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.
21. What happened
22. This is a summary of key events. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
23. Y has special educational needs. He was on roll at a secondary school. He has an EHC Plan.
24. At the beginning of February 2025 Y’s school held an annual review meeting. It was within 12 months of the previous meeting.
25. On 13 February Y’s school shared the report from the annual review meeting.
26. On 28 February 2025 the Council notified Mrs X it had decided to amend Y’s EHC Plan. It sent her an amendment notice and copy of the existing non-amended EHC Plan.
27. On 1 May Mrs X made a stage one complaint to the Council. She complained it had missed the eight week deadline to issue Y’s final amended EHC Plan.
28. Also on 1 May the Council issued Y’s final amended EHC Plan. It recorded a special type placement in Section I. It did not name a specific placement.
29. On 7 May the Council issued a further amended EHC Plan. It named a specific special placement in Section I.
30. Mrs X disagreed with the placement named in Section I. She appealed to the Tribunal. On 13 June the Tribunal notified the Council Mrs X had lodged an appeal.
31. On 11 August the Council issued a final amended EHC Plan.
32. On 27 August the Council responded to Mrs X’s stage one complaint. It acknowledged it had not met the deadline for issuing an amended final EHC Plan following the annual review. It apologised.
33. On 30 August Mrs X made a stage two complaint to the Council. She complained its delays in issuing the amended final EHC Plan, and in responding to her stage one complaint, were not acceptable. She also complained about matters that were considered during the appeal process.
34. Mrs X complained to us on 7 December. We contacted the Council and asked it if it had finished considering Mrs X’s complaints.
35. On 10 December the Council responded to Mrs X’s stage two complaint. It upheld her complaints of delays in its stage one complaint response, and in issuing the final amended EHC Plan. It said it was working through a backlog of complaints. It apologised.

Analysis and findings

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

a) Failed to complete an annual review and issue her son Y’s amended final Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory deadline.

37. The Council initially had a four week deadline after the annual review meeting at the beginning of February. It met that deadline when it sent Mrs X the amendment notice and copy of the existing non-amended EHC Plan on 28 February.
38. The Council then had an eight week deadline from that date to issue Y’s final amended EHC Plan. The deadline was 25 April. The Council did not issue the final amended EHC Plan until 1 May. It therefore missed the statutory deadline by six days. This was fault.
39. The fault caused injustice in the form of uncertainty, frustration and delayed appeal rights.
40. The Council apologised for the injustice in its complaint responses. I have decided the apologies meet our expectations for how organisations should apologise. I have also decided the apologies are appropriate remedies for the injustice caused.
41. I therefore recommend no further action for the fault and injustice regarding this part of Mrs X’s complaint.

b) Took too long to respond to her formal complaints.

42. The Council’s complaint policy says it aims to provide a full reply to stage one complaints within 20 working days. Where this is not possible, it will inform the complainant when a full reply is likely to be sent.
43. It goes on to say it aims to reply to stage two complaints in 20 working days, or a maximum of 65 days for more complex cases.
44. In this case the Council took 82 working days to respond to Mrs X’s stage one complaint. I have seen no evidence it informed Mrs X of the delay or likely timescale.
45. The Council then took 72 working days to respond to Mrs X’s stage two complaint. I acknowledge there was a parallel appeal, however I do not consider Mrs X’s complaint was a particularly complex case.
46. Based on this evidence I find the Council significantly missed its target timescales when replying to Mrs X’s complaints. I also find it failed to keep her adequately informed during the delays. This was fault.
47. The fault caused injustice in the form of significant time and trouble for Mrs X.
48. I acknowledge the Council apologised for the stage one delay in its stage two response. I have decided the length of the delays was significant and unremedied injustice remains. For this reason I have decided to recommend the Council apologises and makes a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Action

49. Within four weeks of the date of my final decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mrs X for its delays in providing responses to her formal complaints.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £150 to Mrs X for the time and trouble caused by its delays in providing responses to her formal complaints.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

51. I find fault causing injustice for the Council’s delays in issuing Y’s amended Final EHC Plan and delays in responding to Mrs X’s complaints. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman