Summary: We have ended our investigation into Ms X’s complaint that the Council issued a final amended (EHC) Plan without following the proper process because there is insufficient evidence that any fault by the Council caused injustice to Ms X or child Z. The Council was not at fault in refusing to participate in dispute resolution. The Council was at fault in its handling of Ms X’s complaint, causing her confusion. The Council agreed to apologise to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council made amendments to Z’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan without following the correct process. She says the Council sent her a final (amended) EHC Plan in May 2024 without first holding a review meeting, issuing a notice to amend, or giving her chance to comment on an amended draft. She says this meant she was unable to appeal the final (amended) Plan.
2. Ms X complained further that the Council refused to participate in dispute resolution to resolve her concerns about the content of Z’s final (amended) Plan. She says the Council’s faults have caused physical harm to Z and distress to the family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
4. 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 any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), 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

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I discussed the complaint with Ms X on the telephone.
11. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law, policy and guidance

EHC Plan 

12. A child or young person with special educational needs (SEN) 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. 

Appeal rights

13. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified in their EHC Plan, and amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan.
14. The Tribunal can extend education appeals to consider the social care and health parts of an EHC Plan but only where there is also an education dispute.

Mediation

15. Councils must arrange for a child’s parents or the young person to receive information about mediation as an informal way to resolve disputes about decisions that can be appealed to the Tribunal. Parents need to consider mediation and get a ‘mediation certificate’ before they can appeal to the Tribunal. They do not have to agree to attend mediation.

Reviewing EHC Plans

16. 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) 
17. 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.
18. 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

19. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology. I have investigated events from May 2024 to August 2024. Events prior to that are included for background only.
20. Z has SEN and has an EHC Plan. The Council carried out an annual review of Z’s Plan in February 2023, and issued a decision to amend the Plan in March 2023. The Council issued a final (amended) EHC Plan for Zin May 2023. Ms X lodged an appeal with the Tribunal about the education aspects of Z’s Plan.
21. The Council reached an agreement with Ms X about the content of the EHC Plan following mediation in January 2024. The Council asked the Tribunal to issue a consent order. The Tribunal did so in early February 2024, which concluded the appeal.
22. Also in early February 2024, the Council issued a final (amended) EHC Plan that reflected the working document agreed following mediation. The version of the EHC Plan agreed by both parties included eight hours per week of Personal Assistant (PA) support for Z.
23. In mid-April 2024, Ms X asked the Council if it would agree to increase the PA support it funded for Z from eight hours of one-to-one support to six hours of two-to-one support and six hours of one-to-one support. The Council agreed her request.
24. The Council issued a further final (amended) EHC Plan in mid-May 2024. This included the agreed PA support as set out in paragraph 23. The accompanying decision letter did not include mention of a right of appeal or a requirement to consider mediation before appealing. It did include information about the availability of information, advice and support and disagreement resolution services.
25. Ms X requested additional social care provision for Z based on evidence she had received from a physiotherapist and a doctor that Z needed a sensory room. The Council carried out a social care assessment and decided the sensory room Ms X requested was not required. In August 2024, the Council informed Ms X that its decision in this regard was final. Ms X asked the Council to participate in dispute resolution to resolve her outstanding concerns about this matter. The Council told Ms X it would not participate in dispute resolution.
26. In late November 2024, the Council held Z’s annual review meeting. It issued its decision to amend Z’s EHC Plan in early January 2025, followed by a final (amended) EHC Plan in late January 2025.
27. In March 2025, Ms X submitted a formal complaint to the Council. It included the complaints set out at paragraphs one and two. She also appealed to the Tribunal about the content of Z’s final (amended) EHC Plan that the Council had issued in late January 2025.
28. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint at stage one of its complaints process in early April 2025, saying that her right to appeal had not been affected. Her appeal had been accepted by the Tribunal and the formal appeals process was ongoing.
29. Also in early April 2025, Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure.
30. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in late April. It said it was unable to add to what it had already said at stage one.
31. In July 2025, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman as set out at paragraphs one and two.

My findings

32. Ms X complained the Council should not have issued a final (amended) EHC Plan in May 2024 without first holding a review meeting, issuing a decision to amend, or giving her chance to comment on an amended draft. This would also have been the annual review of Z’s Plan. In its response to my enquiries, the Council acknowledged that its actions were “procedurally incorrect”. However, the only changes that the Council made to Z’s EHC Plan between the February and May 2024 versions were those requested by Ms X to fund additional PA support for Z. The Council granted Ms X’s request for additional PA support sooner than would have been the case had it acted correctly. And so, there is insufficient evidence of significant personal injustice because of any fault by the organisation to justify further investigation by the Ombudsman. I have ended my investigation of this aspect of Ms X’s complaint.
33. Ms X also complained that the Council did not include her right to appeal the final (amended) EHC Plan issued in May 2024, or to request mediation about it, in an accompanying decision letter. However, Ms X had already appealed the education sections of Z’s Plan and would not have had a right to appeal these again (they were unchanged in the May 2024 version of the Plan). Ms X may have wished to appeal the social care element of the May 2024 EHC Plan but did not have a right to appeal this aspect of Plan in isolation. That is because the Tribunal can only extend education appeals to consider the social care and health parts of an EHC Plan where there is also an education dispute. And so, there is insufficient evidence of significant personal injustice because of any fault by the organisation to justify further investigation by the Ombudsman. I have ended my investigation of this aspect of Ms X’s complaint.
34. Ms X also complained that, in August 2024, the Council refused to participate in dispute resolution to resolve her concerns about the social care element of the final (amended) EHC Plan it issued for Z in May 2024. Participation in a dispute resolution process is voluntary, and so the Council was not at fault in refusing to participate in it.
35. The Council was at fault in its handling of Ms X’s complaint. Ms X’s complaint was about the issuing of the May 2024 EHC Plan, but the Council responded at stage one with reference to her live appeal about the EHC Plan issued in January 2025. The Council had an opportunity to correct this at stage two but did not do so. The Council’s fault caused Ms X confusion and frustration.

Back to top

Action

36. Within one month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X for the injustice caused by the fault in its handling of her complaint.
37. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended above.
38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

39. I found fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman