Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan, and failure to provide appropriate provision in line with it or full-time education when she stopped attending school. The Council accepted fault and provided a remedy to recognise the frustration, distress and missed provision. We are satisfied the remedy was appropriate to reflect the injustice in the limited period we have considered, and did not make further recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to deliver Section F provision for her daughter, did not issue decision letters after annual reviews, did not provide suitable full-time education when she could not attend, and about its poor communication with a lack of timely or effective responses. Mrs X says this caused significant frustration, distress and uncertainty, with a lack of provision negatively impacting on her daughter.

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, we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

6. In line with our investigation processes, limitations affect how we can consider Mrs X’s complaint. I explain further below:
7. Late complaints:
• Mrs X refers to events since 2023. Mrs X complained to us in November 2025. Part of the complaint is therefore late (see Paragraph 3). I am not considering events that far back as in my view, there are no good reasons why Mrs X could not have come to us sooner about this earlier period.
8. Jurisdiction:
• 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)
• This means that if a child is not attending school, and we decide the reason for non-attendance is linked to, or is a consequence of, a parent’s disagreement about the special educational provision or the educational placement in the EHC Plan, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision.
• The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents. If the parent goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the Tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded.
• Due to the restrictions on our powers to investigate where there is an appeal right, there will be cases where there has been past injustice which neither we, nor the Tribunal, can remedy. The courts have found that the fact a complainant will be left without a remedy does not mean we can investigate a complaint. (R (ER) v Commissioner for Local Administration, ex parte Field) 1999 EWHC 754 (Admin). 
9. Scope of this investigation:
• Given the above, this means I am considering a short period of events from November 2024 (12 months before Mrs X came to us) to January 2025 (when Mrs X received a formal decision after an annual review with appeal rights).
• We expect councils to have the opportunity to formally consider new or ongoing matters under its formal complaints procedure first before we investigate. Mrs X is entitled to make a new complaint direct to the Council if she is dissatisfied with what has happened since.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered her views.
11. I considered the Council’s responses to Mrs X’s formal complaint, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mrs 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 administrative background

Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans

13. A child 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. 

Maintaining the EHC Plan

14. The council has a duty to make sure the child 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.

Reviewing EHC Plans

15. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to 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) If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan, it must inform the child’s parents of their right to appeal the decision to the Tribunal.

Background

16. Mrs X’s daughter (J) has had an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for several years. She attended the “School”. J had struggled with her education due to unmet special educational needs, including high anxiety and Autistic Spectrum Condition.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

17. In early January 2025, Mrs X formally complained to the Council. It failed to complete the annual review process of J’s EHC Plan in 2023 and in May 2024. Since September 2024, J’s attendance had reduced and then stopped. The School provided 4 hours of home tuition. J engaged with this, but Mrs X did not know why that amount was deemed sufficient to meet J’s needs. Also, J was not receiving support as outlined in Section F of her EHC Plan.
18. Due to these issues, Mrs X said she requested an emergency annual review, held in late December 2024. This discussed that learning at home was in J’s best interests to meet her needs. Mrs X wanted the Council to amend J’s EHC Plan with Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS).
19. In late January 2025, the Council issued a decision letter. It decided not to amend J’s EHC Plan. Mrs X later appealed this to the Tribunal.
20. A few days later, the Council sent a Stage 1 complaint response. Relevant to the scope I am considering, it said it did not have professional evidence stating J was not able to attend the School. It acknowledged barriers to J attending. But in its view, she could access the provision available at the School with support.
21. In March 2025, Mrs X escalated her complaint, disagreeing J could attend the School due to longstanding issues. She outlined the immense impact this was having on all the family and on J’s wellbeing.
22. In April 2025, the Council responded at Stage 2. It accepted several faults:
• It did not send formal decision letters after the 2023 and May 2024 annual reviews;
• It promptly did so after the December 2024 annual review. But it missed opportunities to include some updates and conduct a more thorough review;
• When it was aware in autumn 2024 that J stopped attending the School, it did not review any provision for her;
• It failed to deliver Section F provision to J; and
• It failed to effectively communicate with Mrs X.
23. It accepted these caused injustice of significant distress, uncertainty, frustration and J missing out on provision. It also made recommendations to improve its services in future. It offered a remedy of £900 to Mrs X, which she accepted.
24. In November 2025, Mrs X complained to us.
25. In late January 2026, the Tribunal issued a signed consent order. The Council agreed EOTAS for J and the appeal concluded.

Analysis

26. To its credit, the Council accepted several faults in its final response to Mrs X’s complaint. It also offered a remedy which I have considered in more detail.
27. I am not clear for what overall period the Council accepted it failed to deliver Section F provision to J. However, as outlined in Paragraph 9, I am considering a period of around two months between November 2024 and January 2025.
28. The Council acknowledged it did not review the amount of education J received at this point (4 hours tuition a week) to consider if it was appropriate, and a lack of Section F provision here too.
29. I consider the remedy of £900 sufficient to recognise the uncertainty, frustration and missed provision for J within the limited remit of my investigation. This is in line with our guidance on remedies, and the Council has already paid this to her. I therefore do not recommend anything further.
30. The Council made appropriate service improvement recommendations for it to act on. I also note we have made recommendations in recent decisions identifying similar fault, since the events of this complaint. I do not consider it necessary to make further ones and we will continue to monitor this in our casework.

Back to top

Decision

31. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has provided a suitable remedy going beyond the period I have considered. I have not recommended anything further. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman