Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s delay in issuing a decision following an Education Health and Care Plan annual review or following a Tribunal’s decision. We are unlikely to find significant injustice. We are unlikely to find significant fault in Mrs X’s complaint about failing to provide support.

The complaint

1. Mrs X says the Council delayed in issuing a decision following an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) annual review. She says it delayed in issuing an amended EHC Plan following a Tribunal decision and failed to provide the support set out in that EHC Plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:
• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating; or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The Council held an EHC Plan annual review for Y, in February 2025. It did not issue its decision following that annual review until July 2025. The Council accepts this is outside the statutory timescales. It apologised. We are unlikely to recommend any further remedy as Mrs X was not caused delayed appeal rights or uncertainty by this. This is because the Tribunal was considering Y’s EHC Plan during that delay period.
6. Mrs X says the Council delayed in issuing the amended EHC Plan following the Tribunal’s decision. The Council denies this. It has explained how and when it sent the EHC Plan to Mrs X. Even if Mrs X’s account is correct, the delay she states is short and not of a length which we are likely to say is significant enough to justify investigating.
7. Mrs X complained in early September, days into the school term, the EHC Plan was not being implemented. 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 the provision is not in place. 
8. It is unlikely we would find fault in this case.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because it is unlikely we would find she has been caused significant injustice by a delayed annual review decision or a potentially delayed EHC Plan issued after a Tribunal. We are unlikely to find fault in her complaint about lack of provision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman