The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We upheld a complaint from Miss X, finding the Council at fault for not doing more to support her son having access to education. This included failures by the Council to complete a reassessment of his Education, Health and Care Plan and delays following a review. We considered the combined faults caused injustice as a loss of education provision and distress. The Council accepted recommendations we made to remedy this injustice and improve its service, set out at the end of this statement.
The complaint
Miss X complained to the Council in August 2025 that it had delayed in letting her know the outcome of an annual review of her son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She said this contributed to him being without suitable and accessible education.
Miss X contacted this office about her complaint in October 2025. By then, the Council had agreed to amend Y’s Plan. But it had not issued a final version of the amended Plan. She explained Y had not been in full-time education since October 2023. She saw the delay by the Council in issuing Y’s Plan as part of a pattern of it not responding to his needs. We considered her complaint therefore encompassed the Council’s response to Y being out of full-time education.
Miss X said Y’s absence from education caused him distress and anxiety. She told us she too experienced distress. And that the Council had caused her avoidable frustration and put her to unnecessary time and trouble in its handling of Y’s case and her complaint.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes limits on what we can investigate.
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) The law also 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) 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.
Where we investigate, we consider 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) 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) If 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) Under an information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
What I did and did not investigate I investigated the Council’s response to Y not being in full-time education from June 2024 onward.
I chose this date, after noting any complaint Miss X made about events before October 2024 was potentially late, for the reasons explained in paragraph 5.
I found that during June 2024 the Council and Y’s school began discussions about his provision and amending his Plan (I provide details of those below). A series of actions then followed. I considered these formed a continuous series of events during which time Miss X raised concerns about Y’s access to education. I considered it unfair not to consider this whole sequence of events, which led to her complaint. That is why I chose June 2024 as the start date for my investigation.
I found Miss X had no appeal rights from June 2024 onwards. The Council had issued Y with a final EHC Plan in April 2024. It did not issue another final Plan before he moved away from its area in early December 2025, which was the end date for my investigation. So, by June 2024 Miss X’s appeal rights had lapsed.
But before then I thought it reasonable that if Miss X considered Y’s April 2024 Plan did not meet his needs that she could have appealed.
I took account that Miss X told me she had no record of receiving a copy of Y’s Plan in April 2024. But I noted the Council sent this after circulating a draft version in March 2024. I thought it likely therefore that Miss X knew a final Plan was due around April 2024. So, while I accepted she may not have received a final copy of the Plan then, she could have chased the Council to provide one.
I considered therefore that even if Miss X did not receive the Plan, any complaint made to us in October 2025 about its non-receipt was late. And for the reasons set out in paragraphs 16 and 17, I had no good reason to extend my investigation to look at events before June 2024.
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
I gave Miss X and the Council chance to comment on a draft version of this decision statement. I took account of any comments they made, or further evidence they provided, before finalising this decision statement.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance 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 arrangements to meet them. The EHC Plan has sections. Section F sets out the education provision a child should receive. Section I names their education setting.
Reviews of EHC Plans The council must arrange for a review of the EHC Plan at least annually. 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 end 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) Where the council proposes amending an EHC Plan, within four weeks of the review meeting, 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).
Councils must then issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.
Also, the council must review and amend an EHC Plan in enough time before a child or young person moves between key phases of education. For young people moving from secondary school to a post-16 institution or apprenticeship, the council must review and amend the EHC Plan by 31 March in the calendar year of the transfer.
Reassessments of EHC Plans A reassessment of a child or young person’s EHC Plan can happen if a council agrees to a request to reassess made by a child’s parent or their education placement. The council can also decide to complete a reassessment on its own initiative if it thinks one necessary.
If the council agrees to an EHC needs reassessment, it has 14 weeks to issue the final EHC Plan from the date it agreed to reassess.
Alternative Provision Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says a council must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child cannot attend school because: of a permanent exclusion; an illness; or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child.
If a council discovers a child absent from school for an extended period, it should consider the reasons for this and any evidence from relevant parties (such as the child’s school, parents, and medical professionals). It must then decide whether it has a duty to make alternative educational provision.
Councils should consider any attempts made by the child’s school to support the child. For example, if it sends work home for the child to complete or has placed the child on a reduced timetable. Where a clear, effective, and time-bound plan for reintegration exists, the council may have no immediate duty to provide alternative education.
Government guidance (Working together to improve school attendance) states all pupils of compulsory school age have an entitlement to a full-time education. In exceptional circumstances they may need a temporary part-time timetable to meet their needs. For example, where a medical condition prevents a pupil attending full-time education and a part-time timetable forms part of a re-integration package. But it says councils and schools must not treat part-time timetables as a long-term solution.
If the council decides it must arrange alternative provision, it needs to arrange provision based on the child’s individual needs. It should also have a review process to ensure the provision remains in the child’s best interests. Councils can decide a child cannot cope with full-time provision, especially where their non-attendance is for medical reasons. When this happens, the Council should provide reasons for the amount of provision it arranges.
If a child has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan the council also has an ongoing duty to arrange the support guaranteed by the Plan. However, this might not always be possible, such as where a Plan specifies SEN support within the child’s normal classroom setting.
We publish good practice guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to identify and arrange alternative educational provision: Supporting children out of school (October 2025) Our guidance includes saying that councils should: consider all the reasons for a child’s absence from school, and make a written evidence-based decision about whether it will arrange alternative education provision; ensure provision meets the individual needs of the child where it decides to arrange alternative education. This includes explaining its reasons for providing a part-time education if it decides the child cannot cope with full-time provision; keep all cases of part-time education under review to consider if it can increase the education a child receives; work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to their normal educational setting, reviewing and amending plans as necessary.
Council policy on section 19 pre-September 2025 The Council amended its policy on Section 19 provision in September 2025. But common to both pre and post September 2025 versions, the policy puts an emphasis on schools being pro-active to support pupils missing education.
Both policies explain that schools should follow a ‘pathway’ approach for children missing education because of anxiety or emotionally based avoidance. The pathways encourage using reintegration plans for helping children to return to school. This can include having time limited part-time timetables. Both also refer to the Council providing outreach support to schools including advice from specialist services, tuition services, remote learning and use of learning robots.
The policies explain slightly different approaches towards how the Council will decide on whether to directly make provision for a child missing education. But both refer to it having a specialist panel which meets every two weeks, chaired by the Manchester Hospital School which provides education for children too ill to go to school. Both also make clear that sometimes the Council’s role will be to support schools to deliver education rather than commissioning education directly.
In addition, current policy states for pupils with special educational needs who have an EHC Plan, their school should seek advice from specialist teams who might help (both within its special educational needs and disability service and externally). It says schools must also make the ECH Plan Co-Ordinator aware. And schools should request an early review of an EHC Plan where a child has had a change of need.
The key facts Y is a child of secondary school age with special educational needs. In September 2023 he began year 9 of his secondary education, attending a mainstream school. He had an EHC Plan. In October 2023, Y began to struggle to attend school because of anxiety. He went on to a part-time timetable.
In April 2024 the Council issued Y with a final version of an amended EHC Plan. Section F of the Plan described the education provision Y would receive. It described various class-based provision but also referred to Y receiving “access to tutoring three times a week for one hour to build up re-engagement”. It also said that Y's “progress will be monitored on a termly basis”.
In June 2024 emails show the school and Y’s EHC Plan Co-Ordinator discussed Y’s case. An email from the Council said they were “looking to increase tutoring hours as [Y] is able to access 10 hours”. The Council recorded the school would contact the tutor, before its Co-Ordinator amended a “draft”. Later emails sent by the Co-Ordinator referred also to her planning on amending Y’s Plan once the school received details from the tutor on their availability. These emails show that besides to his tuition, Y attended school twice a week, for up to an hour.
In July 2024 Miss X sent emails to the Council saying she did not think Y’s existing Plan met his needs and he needed access to more education. She wanted a reassessment of his needs. She said Y wanted to return to school but had “no clear way” of doing so.
A more senior officer in the Council’s EHCP service picked up this email. She agreed the Council should begin a reassessment of Y’s needs. In August 2024 she updated Miss X, saying the Education Psychology service had picked up a referral to assess Y’s needs. That service gave its advice to inform the reassessment of Y’s needs, in November 2024.
Also in November 2024, Y’s school contacted the Council to say it was trying to “rebook a tutor as the original one has fallen through”. I saw no reply to that email.
Then in January 2025 the school contacted the Council wanting details of Y’s new Coordinator. It said that it had found another tutor to deliver an extra two hours of tuition for Y and noted his previous Coordinator had agreed Y could have up to 10 hours tuition. It wanted advice on funding for that. It also wanted an up-to-date version of Y’s Plan understanding the Council had begun a review of the content in June 2024. I saw no reply to that email.
In June 2025 Y’s school arranged an annual review of his Plan. The Council’s Co-Ordinator could not attend. In an email before the meeting her senior officer told the school that she would “look into the tuition offer” to find out why Y did not receive ten hours tuition a week.
In August 2025 Miss X complained the Council had not taken action following the annual review. The Council replied at the end of September confirming the school had sent it details of the review held in June. It agreed that it was “unacceptable” it had not yet confirmed its intent. It promised to write to Miss X at the beginning of October with an amended Plan.
The Council said that after the review meeting, Y’s Co-Ordinator had unexpectedly left their post. It had no-one to take over the case straight away because of “significant capacity pressures” in its SEND service. It suggested those pressures have since eased.
In October 2025 the Council issued another version of Y’s Plan. Its covering letter and contemporaneous emails said it was a draft version of amended Plan. However, it did not mark the Plan as a draft. It also included details of Y’s schooling in Section I, continuing to name the mainstream school (a draft Plan leaves section I blank).
The Council told us that as Y was now in Year 11 of his education it had begun discussions around his post-16 education arrangements. It expected to issue him a final Plan in March 2026 confirming those. However, in December 2025 Miss X and Y moved out of its area to another local authority. It therefore had no further responsibility to provide Y with an EHC Plan, with responsibility transferring to the new authority.
Miss X did not receive her copy of the draft Plan issued in October until the following month. In between, she escalated her complaint to the Council. It declined to consider the complaint at step two of its complaint procedure saying it could not add to its earlier reply. Miss X went on to complain to us before the end of October 2025.
During the investigation, the Council confirmed that it never completed the reassessment it begun in July 2024. It provided copies of its consultations carried out for the reassessment and responses to those consultations. I noted this included a lengthy response from Y’s school detailing multiple interventions made to support him with school attendance from Year 7 onward. The school said during Year 9 it had discussed Y attending a school offering specialist short-term provision. It had also worked with an advice organisation referred to in the Council’s Section 19 and anxiety based school avoidance policies.
The Council also said it had never received a referral asking it to consider providing education for Y under Section 19 of the Education Act. It said professionals who worked with Y “agreed” he should have a part-time timetable as this was all he could “reasonably access”. It said there was an “agreed plan” kept under “regular review” and it had hoped to increase that provision when appropriate. It said that while its officers had discussed increasing Y’s provision to ten hours tuition a week it had never agreed this. It considered Y’s tuition: “reflected both the agreed arrangements and ongoing concerns regarding [Y’s] ability to engage with education”.
My findings
I found from confusion by the Council’s in its handling of Y’s case, from June 2024 onward. There was clear evidence Y’s Coordinator intended to amend Y’s Plan at that time, even though the Council had only issued him a revised Plan in April.
The purpose behind the proposed amendment was to increase Y’s tuition to 10 hours a week. The Council’s case notes did not make clear if the view Y could cope with 10 hours a week tuition was its own belief, or that of his school. But if was only the school’s view, there is no evidence the Council challenged it. Its Coordinator indicated they intended changing Y’s Plan, once his school secured the extra tuition.
After the Coordinator left their post, Y’s case passed to a more senior officer and after that changed hands again on another two occasions. But none of those officers returned to the subject of Y’s tuition, despite prompts from Y’s school indicating it struggled to identify a tutor to provide more hours. So, neither the amendment to Y’s Plan nor more importantly, the increase in Y’s tuition, happened. The Council showed inattention and that was a fault.
That inattention went to the issue at the crux of this complaint, which was Y’s long-term absence from full-time education. Aside from the exchanges about increasing Y’s tuition in June 2024, I found no evidence of the Council doing more to consider how it could support Y’s participation in education. The Council said that professionals had ‘agreed’ Y could only cope with limited engagement with education. I accepted that may have been true when he first went on to a part-time timetable in October 2023. But the Council provided no record it reviewed that provision, even though Y’s Plan issued in April 2024 said this should happen once a term.
Nor did the Council consider Y’s circumstances against the approach set out in its Section 19 policy. The evidence shows Y’s school tried various interventions to support Y, broadly in line with the expectations set out in the anxiety based school avoidance pathway. This included trying a part-time timetable and seeking support from specialist organisations offering advice. Those measures had not worked. Yet despite this the Council never sought to ensure his case went to its Section 19 panel or otherwise set out its thinking on whether it had the Section 19 duty. That was more inattention and so another fault.
Instead, the Council’s EHC planning team confined itself mainly to considerations around the content of Y’s Plan and not his day-to-day education experience. But even with this limited involvement the service let Y down.
In July 2024 the Council promised to reassess Y’s needs and embarked on that process. But it never completed it. The reassessment, already running late in November 2024, stalled without completion. Like the commitment to secure Y more tuition it fell away. So, when the case passed to a new Coordinator there was no handover plan and the Council took no corporate responsibility to ensure its completion. That was a fault.
Then in June 2025 a belated annual review of Y’s Plan took place. This was the first review of Y’s Plan held in well over 12 months. This despite him being largely out of school, which should have triggered an emergency review in the absence of the reassessment completing.
This delay should also have lent urgency to the Council completing the actions following the review. It should have finalised amendments to Y’s Plan by early September 2025 at the latest. But when Y moved away from the Council’s area in early December the Plan remained in draft format. That was a fault.
The Council’s comments also suggested a fundamental confusion around its duty to amend a child’s EHC Plan in preparation for their post-16 future. The Council correctly identified that had Y stayed in its area, it should have issued him with a Plan, by March 2026, in preparation for September that year. But it conflated that requirement, with the need to complete a review of Y’s Plan annually, which by December 2025 was something that had become seriously overdue. This conflation, was a further fault.
To confuse matters further, when the Council issued Y with a draft Plan in October 2025, it wrongly issued it in a final format. That too was a fault.
I considered the faults set out above caused significant injustice to Y. The cumulative effect was the Council gave inadequate attention to his access to education and ensuring he had an up-to-date EHC Plan. So, as a minimum Y did not receive the 10 hours tuition the Council agreed he would have from June 2024 onward. But with better handling of his case, I consider Y may have had greater access still to education. Because had the Council focused on its Section 19 policy then Y would have had a clear reintegration plan, reviewed regularly (as his Plan also required). So while the available evidence suggested Y could only access around 10 hours education a week in June 2024, I thought it reasonable to assume but for the fault this would have increased. So, I found Y suffered a significant loss of education.
This loss of service impacted on Miss X too and I took account of that when seeking a remedy for the complaint. But also, I found the Council caused Miss X some avoidable frustration and distress through its confusing decision making and poor communications.
I welcome the Council has accepted these findings. I set out below action it has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to Miss X and Y.
Agreed Action
Personal remedy To remedy the injustice caused to Miss X and Y, the Council has agreed that within 20 working days of this decision, it will: apologise to Miss X accepting the findings of this investigation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making its apology; make a symbolic payment to Miss X of £6250.
The symbolic payment takes account of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. This suggests that where a child has lost education provision because of fault by the Council, we should adopt a tariff approach using a figure of between £900 and £2400 for each school term impacted. To decide the sum, we will consider: the age of the child; if the loss of provision was in whole or in part; whether it is likely but for the fault the child would have accessed full-time provision; the impact also on the child’s parent who complains.
In this case I took account that: Y was in his secondary education with Years 10 and 11 particularly significant in a child’s education; he had only limited access to education between June 2024 and the end of November 2025, equating to no more than around 20% of full-time provision; the evidence suggested he could have coped with at least double that provision from June 2024 onward and possibly more over time (see paragraph 66); Miss X experienced distress because of C’s absence from education.
I considered a sum of £1500 a term should apply for the period June 2024 to the end of November 2025 which approximated to four terms. To this I added £250 for the distress caused solely by the Council’s poor communications with Miss X, giving a total of £6250.
Service improvements In addition to this personal remedy for Miss X, the Council has agreed to also learn lessons from her complaint.
Within three months of a decision on this complaint it will: review current handover arrangements when EHC case coordinators or their line managers leave their post. The Council needs to understand why in this case successive case handlers did not pursue outstanding actions including the request for more home tuition and the reassessment it began but never finished. It will make any changes needed to current advice on this subject and brief EHC case coordinators and their line managers on its expectations for effective handovers and / or any changes to practice resulting from its review; ensure the briefing agreed at a) above also sets out of the Council’s expectations of officers in discharging its Section 19 policy and raises awareness of our guidance on this subject (see paragraphs 34-35). The briefing will stress the need for the Council to keep records of how it takes decisions about access to education, for children it knows are not accessing full-time education.
The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with these actions and those set out in paragraph 69.
Decision For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Miss X and Y. The Council agreed action that I considered would remedy that injustice. So, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman