The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed carrying out a phase transfer review for her son and did not rectify errors in annual review documentation. We have found that the Council was at fault. However, it has already offered a suitable remedy. We have not investigated Mrs X's complaint about the implementation of her son’s 2024 Education, Health and Care plan. This complaint is late and there is no good reason why Mrs X could not have complained to us sooner.
The complaint
Mrs X complains that the Council delayed carrying out a phase transfer review for her son Y, failed to rectify errors in the annual review paperwork, did not follow its complaints procedure and did not make provision outlined in his Educational, Health and Care (EHC) plan.
Mrs X would like the Council to acknowledge the impact this had, reimburse her costs and put steps in place to ensure this does not happen again.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 s34H(1), as amended) Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, guidance and policy.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered their comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Law, guidance and policy A child or young person with special educational needs may have an education, health and care (EHC) plan. This document sets out their needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. 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) The council must review and amend an EHC Plan in enough time before a child or young person moves between key phases of education. This allows planning for and, where necessary, commissioning of support and provision at the new institution. The review and any amendments must be completed by 15 February in the calendar year in which the child is due to transfer into or between school phases. The key transfers are: early years provider to school; infant school to junior school; primary school to middle school; primary school to secondary school; and middle school to secondary school. (SEN Code paragraph 9.179) The Council’s complaints procedure says it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days and no later than 20 working days, unless there is a good reason for delay. It says it will communicate any delay and the reason for it. If someone is unhappy with the response, they can ask for a review of their complaint. The Council aims to respond to a request for review within 20 working days of acknowledging it.
What happened In early June 2024 Y’s annual review took place. Mrs X says she became aware that Y did not receive Speech and Language Therapy or Occupational Therapy input through school.
In early August 2024, Mrs X contacted the Council as she had not received the paperwork following the review.
In early September 2024, Mrs X contacted the Council and reminded it she had still not received the paperwork and also asked when Y’s phase transfer would be. The following day, the Council sent out the paperwork. Mrs X said this was full of errors, but the Council told her that it was the school’s responsibility to amend it. The Council told Mrs X that a phase transfer does not need to be held if the young person is to remain at the same school and it is only for when they are moving from one setting to another.
In November 2024, the school arranged a review, but Mrs X cancelled this, as she had not received the required paperwork and relevant professionals had not been invited. Mrs X says it was at this time she became aware that Y had not received professional Occupational Therapy or Speech and Language Therapy input since 2023.
In early January 2025, Mrs X made a complaint to the Council. She said there was a failure to rectify annual review paperwork errors, a refusal and failure to carry out a phase transfer and a failure to make provision in Section F of the EHCP.
Later that month, a phase transfer review was held, but Mrs X said she had still not received the paperwork ahead of the meeting.
In mid-February 2025 the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint and apologised for the delay in notifying her whether they were going to cease, amend or maintain Y’s plan, but said the phase transfer was only if moving between provisions.
On the same day the response was sent, Mrs X asked to escalate her complaint as it had gone past the timescale for which she should have received a response to her complaint.
In early March 2025, Mrs X contacted the Council as she had not received a response to her escalation request. The Council said that as the response had gone to Mrs X, they thought it had resolved her reason for escalating the complaint but that they would ensure she received a response at Stage 2 by the end of March.
When this date passed, Mrs X contacted the Council to ask what was happening to her complaint, and she received an apology from the Council.
In early April 2025, Mrs X received her Stage 2 response. The Council apologised, upheld her complaints about the documentation and phase transfer and offered to reimburse £850 for the cost of obtaining Speech and Language Therapy and Occupational Therapy reports. It outlined its learning from the complaint. The Council did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint about its interpretation of a provision in Section F of the EHC plan.
The Council said it would not reimburse the cost of weekly therapy sessions or the educational psychologist assessment because this provision was not specified in the EHC plan.
In the middle of June 2025, Y’s plan was finalised and his current school was named in the plan, in line with parental preference.
At the end of June 2025, Mrs X received her final complaint response. As well as reimbursing her costs, it offered her £1,000 for stress and frustration due to a lack of updates regarding her complaint response and due to the Council providing incorrect information about phase transfers.
The Council’s final response agreed with its stage 2 response. The EHC plan did not stipulate any provision by a Speech and Language Therapist or Occupational Therapist and encouraged Mrs X to speak with the SEND team should she wish for the plan to be amended so that it had more specificity.
My findings
The Council did not respond to Mrs X's complaints within the timescales set out in its complaints procedure. This was fault. It apologised for the delays and the distress they caused. The Council responded to the stage one complaint six working days late and to the stage two complaint ten working days late.
The Council exceeded the statutory timeframe for deciding whether to maintain, amend or cease Y's plan. It made its decision approximately three months late. It also failed to correct the errors in the annual review paperwork. This was fault. The Council apologised for both failings.
The Council acknowledged it provided incorrect information about the phase transfer process. It accepted that a phase transfer review should take place even where a child or young person is expected to remain at the same school. The Council’s delay to the phase transfer review affected Mrs X’s ability to appeal the final plan, and this was fault.
The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about matters which took place more than 12 months before someone complained to us, unless there are good reasons why it would have been unreasonable to expect them to complain to us sooner.
Mrs X said she became aware in November 2024 that Y had not received Occupational Therapy and Speech and Language Therapy input since 2023. However, the information she provided indicates she was aware of the absence of this professional input by June 2024.
Mrs X’s complaint to us about this element was made at the end of October 2025. This means the complaint is late.
I considered whether there would be good reason to disregard our statutory time limit. However, I note that – even if I did so – it is unlikely I would be able to assess the potential injustice arising from Y’s school not ‘receiving advice and/or training from the relevant health specialists’. Y was not receiving therapy from those specialists.
As Mrs X knew about this matter more than 12 months before complaining to us, and in the absence of any obvious significant injustice to Y, there is no good reason to disregard our statutory time limit and therefore the law does not allow me to investigate it.
The Council offered Mrs X a remedy payment of £1,850, which consisted of £850 to reimburse the cost of the reports and £1,000 for delays, providing incorrect information and stress and frustration, which is in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
I do not find fault with the Council’s decision not to reimburse the costs of provision which was not in Y’s EHC plan.
The Council set out ways in which it will improve its service, and, taking these service improvements into account, together with its apology and financial remedy, I consider the Council has remedied the injustice to Mrs X and Y.
Decision The Council was at fault. The Council has taken action to remedy the injustice and no further action by the Ombudsman is needed.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman