Summary: Summary: Mrs Y complained about the way the Council dealt with her child, Z’s special educational needs provision and reviews of their Education Health and Care Plans. We have found a number of faults by the Council, causing injustice, including: a failure to deliver Z’s speech and language therapy provision in 2022; and delays completing the 2023 and 2024 annual review process. The Council has already taken action to remedy some of the faults found. It has also agreed to: apologise to Mrs Y; make a payment to recognise the distress caused; and confirm the position regarding any 2025 annual review personal budget requests.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains about the way the Council has dealt with her child, Z’s special educational needs (SEN) provision and reviews of their Education Health and Care (EHC) Plans. She says the Council failed to:
1. properly update Z’s EHC Plan following the tribunal order in May 2022;
2. deliver section F provision in Z’s EHC Plan from September to December 2022;
3. meet the statutory timescale for completing the annual review of Z’s EHC Plan following the meetings in July 2022 and July 2023;
4. consider her personal budget applications made at the annual reviews in July 2022 and 2023;
5. meet the statutory timescale for completing the annual review following the meeting in July 2024 and delayed naming Z’s secondary school placement;
6. consider her personal budget application made at the July 2024 annual review;
7. hold an annual review meeting in July 2025;
8. follow the 6Cs when working with her on Z’s SEN provision; and
9. properly respond to her complaint
2. Mrs Y says because of these failures Z did not receive all the SEN provision in their EHC Plan and missed opportunities for additional provision. The delays and communication failures caused Mrs Y and the family financial expense and much distress, inconvenience, frustration and uncertainty, affecting her mental health and wellbeing at a time when she was and is seriously ill. Their right to appeal against the EHC Plan was also delayed.
3. Mrs Y wants the Council to focus now on putting things right going forward by providing Z with the appropriate support, complying with statutory timescales and keeping them properly informed. The Council should apologise, and make proper financial redress, for its failings

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these.
5. 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).
6. 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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
7. 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)
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).
9. 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

10. Mrs Y’s complaint includes late complaints about things that happened in 2022, 2023 and 2024, more than 12 months before she brought the complaint to us in February 2026.
11. I have decided there are good reasons to investigate these complaints. This is because Mrs Y has been seriously ill during this period and unable to pursue the issues with us within the 12-month timeframe.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

EHC Plans and reviews

14. 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.
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. 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.
16. 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.
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 annual review process

18. 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. 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. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal.
21. 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; and
• case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.

Personal Budgets

22. A Personal Budget is the amount of money the council has identified it needs to pay to secure the provision in a child or young person’s EHC Plan. One way that councils can deliver a Personal Budget is through direct payments. These are cash payments made to the child’s parent or the young person so they can commission the provision in the EHC Plan themselves.
23. A child’s parent or the young person has the right to request a Personal Budget during a statutory review of an existing EHC Plan.

The Council’s 6Cs commitment

24. The Council’s SEND Local Area Partnership has adopted the following 6Cs as a way of working together and demonstrating its commitment to improving SEND services:

• Co-production
• Communication
• Clarity
• Commitment
• Care
• Consistency

25. The Council says, in the published information about its local offer, SEND services will be required to complete an annual audit of their 6C commitment statement and demonstrate with evidence the impact the commitment has, to ensure services are embedding practice and a continuous cycle of improvement.

What happened

26. I have set out a summary of the key events below. It is not meant to show everything that happened. It is based on my review of all the evidence provided about this complaint.

2022: Tribunal appeal and issue of Z’s final amended EHC Plan

27. Mrs Y appealed to the Tribunal against the content of Z’s EHC Plan. On 16 May the Tribunal issued its order about the form and content of this Plan.
28. The Council issued the new final EHC Plan on 7 June, within five weeks of the Tribunal order.
29. Mrs Y told the Council the wording in the Plan did not match that ordered by the Tribunal. The Council says the discrepancy was the inclusion of a paragraph about funding linked to the EHC Plan, which had been in older plans but removed from its newer plans.
30. On 21 July the Council issued an amended EHC Plan without this paragraph.
31. An annual review meeting was held in June 2022.
32. On 7 September the Council notified Mrs Y of its decision not to amend Z’s EHC Plan. In reply to Mrs Y’s query about this, it told her on 28 September it had decided Z’s Plan did not require any further changes at this stage because it had recently been amended following the Tribunal appeal.

Mrs Y’s 2022 complaint issues and the Council’s response

33. Mrs Y complained the Council had:

• failed to complete the June annual review within the statutory timescale;
• issued an inaccurate version of Z’s EHC Plan following the Tribunal hearing; and
• failed to deliver the speech and language therapy (SALT) provision in Z’s EHC Plan.

34. The Council responded in December 2022/January 2023 and acknowledged:

• its delay notifying Mrs Y about its decision not to amend Z’s EHC Plan following the June annual review meeting. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused;
• the discrepancy in Z’s EHC Plan issued in June 2022. The paragraph concerned simply stated the level of funding linked to the EHC Plan and its inclusion did not negatively affect Z’s support. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by this error;
• it had not delivered all the SALT provision in the Plan. Because the NHS SALT Service was unable to deliver the level of the provision set out in the Plan, it had to arrange for this to be delivered by an independent SALT provider instead. This would start from January 2023. It apologised for its failure to deliver the SALT provision from June 2022; and
• Mrs Y could now ask us (the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman) to review her complaint. She would usually have up to 12 months to do this from the date she first knew of the matter complained about.

2023/2024: Annual review process

35. The 2023 annual review meeting for Z’s EHC Plan was held on 12 July 2023.
36. The Council notified Mrs Y on 18 August 2023 it proposed amending the Plan but did not include the draft amendments.
37. Her request for a personal budget was considered by its Panel. The request was declined and Mrs Y was notified of the outcome.
38. Mrs Y complained about the delay completing the July 2023 annual review process and the Council’s failure to respond to her personal budget request.
39. The Council told Mrs Y in February 2024 it would issue the draft amended plan by 9 February and that it would update her about its discussions with health colleagues about the personal budget request.
40. The Council issued the draft amended plan on 7 February. But it did not complete the annual review process - by issuing the final amended EHC Plan - before starting the 2024 annual review process at the meeting on 10 July 2024.
41. The Council notified Mrs Y on 8 August it proposed amending the Plan.
42. The Council told her in 2025:

• it was working to set up a new learning resource at school A;
• its specialist placement panel had considered a proposal for a placement for Z at school A. The panel had decided to defer this decision until Autumn 2025 when the September 2026 placements would be considered;
• it would confirm Z’s school placement for September 2026 by 15 February 2026, which was when their phase transfer review was due to be completed; and
• it would respond to her questions about her personal budget request and amendments to the plan by the end of the following week.

43. Z’s final amended EHC Plan was issued on 23 September 2025. It named school A as Z’s secondary school placement for that academic year.

Mrs Y’s 2023/2024/2025 complaint issues and the Council’s response

44. Mrs Y complained again to the Council in August 2025. In addition to issues raised in her 2022 complaint, she complained the Council failed to:

• complete the July 2023 and July 2024 annual review process within statutory timescales;
• hold an annual review meeting in July 2025;
• consider her personal budget applications made at the annual review meetings in June 2022, July 2023 and July 2024;
• name Z’s placement; and
• follow the 6 Cs

45. In its responses of September and November 2025, the Council said it:

• accepted the delays completing the annual review process following the meeting in July 2024. The final plan naming school A would be issued in September 2025. The next annual review would be held in October 2025. It apologised for these delays;
• apologised for missing the July 2024 personal budget request;
• was committed to the 6Cs and had developed an action plan to improve timeliness for actions following annual review meetings; and
• offered Mrs Y £400 as a symbolic payment to reflect the stress and frustration caused by its delays.

February 2026: Mrs Y’s complaint to us

46. Mrs Y was not satisfied with the Council’s response. She brought her complaint to us in February 2026.
47. In its reply to our enquiries about the complaint the Council told us:
1. it had subsequently delivered the SALT provision Z missed from June to December 2022;
2. with regard to the personal budget requests:

• it had not found any personal budget request in the June 2022 annual review paperwork. The personal budget request section in annual review form stated “N/A currently”;
• the July 2023 request was considered by its placement and resource panel in September 2023. It was declined and the outcome shared with Mrs Y. The SEND team advised her it would discuss the request with health colleagues, as it was considered to be for health, rather than educational, provision;
• the February 2024 draft amended plan indicated a personal budget request but did not include any details; and
• the July 2024 annual review paperwork did not indicate a personal budget request.
3. with regard to the delay naming Z’s secondary school placement for September 2025:
• Z was not included the phase transfer cohort for February 2025 because they were able to stay at their current middle school until a move to secondary school in September 2026; and
• the change in the type of provision was determined after February 2025. It was then decided to name school A as Z’s placement from September 2025;
4. Z’s annual review was due in July 2025 but wrongly delayed until after their move to secondary school in September 2025. The annual review was then held in November 2025;
5. the SEND team is committed to following the 6Cs. The commitment is included in its local offer, considered as part of the recruitment process and by sharing examples of how this can be demonstrated in practice. The team have offered to meet with Mrs Y to discuss her queries and are committed to working collaboratively with the family; and
6. Mrs Y’s complaints had been thoroughly investigated through its complaint process

My decision – was there fault by the Council causing injustice?

EHC Plan issued following the Tribunal proceedings: complaints a) & b)

48. The Council issued Z’s final amended EHC Plan in June 2022 within the required timescale. But it has accepted there was an error in this Plan. It corrected this by re-issuing the Plan in July 2022. It apologised for the upset this caused in its response to Miss Y’s complaint.
49. My view is the Council has taken appropriate steps to remedy the injustice caused by this fault and I don’t propose asking it to take any further action.
50. The Council has accepted it failed to deliver the SALT provision in Z’s EHC Plan from June to December 2022. It explained the reason, and apologised, for this in its response to Mrs Y’s complaint. The provision was put in place from January 2023. The Council has provided evidence three sessions which should have been delivered in the autumn term 2022 were delivered by the SALT therapist in the spring term 2023.
51. My view is the Council has taken appropriate steps to remedy the injustice to Z as a result of the missed provision. But I consider this fault also caused Mrs Y worry, distress and uncertainty about whether Z’s SALT provision would be delivered.

Completion of the annual review process: complaints c), e) & g)

52. The Council completed the annual review process following the annual review meeting in June/July 2022 by notifying Mrs Y in September 2022 of its decision not to amend Z’s EHC Plan.
53. It has accepted this was outside the statutory timescale and apologised for the delay in its response to Mrs Y’s complaint.
54. My view is the Council has taken appropriate steps to remedy the injustice caused by this fault and I don’t propose asking it to take any further action.
55. The Council failed to complete the annual review process following the July 2023 review meeting within the statutory timescale. It had told Mrs Y it proposed to amend Z’s EHC Plan but did not proceed to issue any final amended plan.
56. And, as it has accepted, the Council then failed again to complete the annual review process started at the July 2024 review meeting within the statutory timescale. The final amended plan should have been issued by October 2024. But it was not issued until September 2025 – a delay of nearly a year.
57. The delays completing the 2023 and 2024 annual review process were fault.
58. Because of this, Mrs Y was caused worry, distress and uncertainty over a two-year period about the outcome of the annual review process and the proposed amendments to Z’s EHC Plan. She and Z were caused additional worry and upset by the uncertainty about Z’s placement for September 2025. Mrs Y’s right to appeal was also delayed. The delay also meant Z’s new school did not receive the significantly updated EHC Plan until a few weeks after Z had started there. This caused Mrs Y further worry about the school not having all the relevant information about Z's needs and provision.
59. There was a delay by the Council holding the annual review meeting in 2025. This should have taken held in July 2025, within 12 months of the July 2024 meeting but did not take place until November 2025.
60. This delay was fault causing Mrs Y further worry, distress and uncertainty about when the overdue 2025 annual review process would start.

Requests for personal budget: complaints d) & e)

61. The annual review form completed by the Council following the annual review meeting in June 2022 records the family made a request for a personal budget and that the request was not agreed. On the basis of the evidence seen, I have not found fault by the Council in failing to consider a request following this meeting.
62. Mrs Y’s personal budget request in July 2023 was considered and declined by the Council in September 2023. I have not found fault on this part of the complaint.
63. But it did fail to follow up on its assurances it would discuss the request with health colleagues and come back to Mrs Y about this.
64. This failure was fault. I can’t say what the outcome of these discussions would have been. But the failure caused Mrs Y further distress and uncertainty about what was happening with her request.
65. Although the Council told us the July 2024 annual review paperwork did not indicate a personal budget request, it apologised for missing the request in its complaint response to Mrs Y. It also said in its contact with Mrs Y in March 2025 it would respond to her questions about her personal budget request. But again, it failed to follow up on its assurance about this.
66. This failure was fault. I can’t say what the outcome of its response would have been. But the failure caused Mrs Y further distress and uncertainty about what was happening with her request.

Following the 6Cs: complaint h)

67. Mrs Y complains the Council has failed to follow the 6C’s in its work with her regarding Z’s SEN provision.
68. The Council adopted the 6Cs as a way of working with the local area partnership and demonstrating its commitment to improving SEND services. Its SEND services are required to complete an annual audit to demonstrate the commitment’s positive impact on services. This is the process the Council uses to monitor its commitment to the 6Cs, not through the identification of issues in particular cases.
69. I have not found fault by the Council on this part of the complaint.

Complaint responses: complaint i)

70. The Council investigated and replied clearly to the complaint issues
    Mrs Y raised with it in 2022 and in August 2025.
71. But there was some delay with its responses. Under the Council’s complaint handling process, it should issue its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of acknowledgement and stage 2 response within 20 working days of the escalation request. There was an overall delay of about 3 working weeks by the Council in completing its handling of Mrs Y’s complaint of August 2025.
72. This delay was fault and caused Mrs Y worry and uncertainty about the timeframe for the Council’s response to her complaint.

Conclusion

73. I have found the Council has already taken appropriate steps to remedy the
    injustice caused by some of the faults set out above.
74. It has not yet taken action to remedy the injustice caused by the following faults found:
1. delays completing the 2023 and 2024 annual review process;
2. delay holding the annual review meeting in 2025; and
3. failure to follow up on its assurances in 2024 in 2025 it would discuss the personal budget request with health colleagues and come back to Mrs Y about this and respond to her questions about the request.
75. And it has not yet remedied the distress caused to Mrs Y by its failure to deliver Z’s SALT provision in 2022, and the uncertainty caused by its complaint handling delay.
76. I have considered whether the Council’s offer of £400 meets our expectations about appropriate redress for the worry, upset and uncertainty caused to Mrs Y by the above faults.
77. There have been a number of failures over a three-year period, including the failure to complete the 2023 annual review and significant delay completing the 2024 annual review. These have caused Mrs Y avoidable worry and upset during a time of serious illness.
78. While we normally recommend a remedy payment for distress of up to £500, in these circumstances, I consider a payment of £600 would be an appropriate symbolic remedy here for the distress caused as a result of the faults referred to in paragraphs 74 and 75.

Service improvements

79. In response to our recent final decision on another complaint the Council agreed
    to create an action plan identifying the reasons for delays issuing amended EHC Plans and setting out the steps it would take to address these and ensure amended Plans are issued within the statutory timescales.
80. It has also recently agreed to issue a reminder to staff about the importance of following good administrative practice when making and communicating Personal Budget decisions by providing reasons for the decisions and information on the right to ask for a review.
81. As these actions address some of the most significant faults in this complaint, I don’t propose to recommend any further service improvements at this stage.

Back to top

Action

82. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, and within four weeks from the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. apologise to Mrs Y for the failures, from 2022 to 2025, in the way it dealt with Z’s SEN provision and reviews of their EHC Plans, personal budget requests, complaint handling delays, and the upset caused. This apology should be in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
2. pay Mrs Y £600 to recognise the worry, upset and uncertainty caused by its failures. This is a symbolic payment based on our guidance on remedies; and
3. confirm with Mrs Y whether there are any outstanding personal budget requests following the November 2025 annual review meeting, and if so, consider and respond to these requests.
83. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

84. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to carry out the above action to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman