The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to issue an amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her son (Y), within statutory timescales following an annual review. We find the Council at fault. This caused Mrs X uncertainty over the suitability of the provision in Y’s EHC Plan and the outcome of the review. It has also delayed her right to appeal. The Council has agreed to make a symbolic payment to Mrs X and service improvements to remedy the injustice.
The complaint
Mrs X complained the Council failed to issue an amended Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for her son (Y), within statutory timescales following an annual review. Mrs X says communication with the Council has been poor.
Mrs X says the delay has caused distress and uncertainty to the family.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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) 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) 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 spoke to Mrs X and discussed the complaint with her. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Legislation and Guidance EHC Plan 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.
Reviewing EHC Plans 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. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to 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) 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.
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 – summary of key events Mrs X has a child (Y) who has special educational needs. An EHC Plan is in place for Y.
Y’s school carried out an annual review of his EHC Plan in late March 2025.
The Council received the annual review documents from the school on 8 May, requesting amendments to the EHC Plan.
The Council sent Mrs X a decision letter on 3 June, stating it agreed to make changes to Y’s Plan.
Mrs X complained to the Council in late August. Mrs X said the Council had failed to issue an amended EHC Plan within statutory timescales.
The Council responded to the complaint at stage one and accepted it had not issued the decision letter and draft amended EHC Plan within statutory timescales. The Council said it had reviewed the paperwork and confirmed that no substantial amendments had been identified to Y’s provision within the Plan. It said there was no injustice in terms of missed or undelivered provision, but it fully accepted the delay had caused unnecessary uncertainty and apologised for this.
The Council explained it would remind schools and settings about the importance of submitting annual review paperwork promptly, and it was strengthening internal monitoring to ensure amendment notices and draft plans were progressed without delay.
The Council confirmed it would issue a draft amended EHC Plan by 12 September 2025.
On 15 October, Mrs X complained to the Council again. Mrs X said despite assurances from the Council she had still not received a copy of the draft amended EHC Plan.
The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint on the same day. The Council apologised to Mrs X and explained the delay in issuing the draft amended Plan was due to competing casework pressures within the EHC team at the time the amendment was being finalised.
The Council confirmed it had now sent Mrs X a copy of the draft amended EHC Plan, and she had 15 calendar days to review and comment on the content before the final Plan was issued. The Council said the final EHC Plan would be issued by 29 October.
Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman at the end of November. Mrs X explained the Council had still not issued a final EHC Plan for Y. Mrs X said without a final Plan there was uncertainty around whether Y’s needs were understood or supported and this meant Y was left without clarity and stability. Mrs X said the situation had caused avoidable stress for the family.
Y’s school carried out an annual review of his EHC Plan in late March 2026.
The Council issued a final amended EHC Plan in June 2026 Analysis We encourage councils to deal with complaints and provide remedies in line with our guidance.
We will not generally reinvestigate complaints if we consider the Council has carried out a satisfactory investigation and where it has made an appropriate remedy. I consider the Council has responded to the main complaint made by Mrs X about the delay in the annual review process and that it is not appropriate for us to reinvestigate the substantive matters. The Council upheld Mrs X's complaints but there is no evidence it considered a suitable remedy for the injustice caused by the faults.
I note the Council did not receive the review paperwork from the school until mid-May 2025. However, the duty to ensure the review is completed within statutory timescales remains with the Council.
The Council must issue its notice of amendment within four weeks of the annual review meeting. The meeting was held on 26 March 2025. The Council should have issued Y’s notice of amendment by 26 April. The Council did not issue it until 3 June 2025. This delay is fault.
Statutory guidance states a final EHC Plan must be issued within 12 weeks of the review meeting. Therefore, in this case, Y’s final EHC Plan should have been issued on 18 June 2025. The Council issued a final Plan a year later, on 3 June 2026. This is a significant delay. The Council’s failure to complete Y’s final EHC Plan within the statutory timescale is fault.
I have reviewed the final amended EHC Plan, and I agree with the Council that no substantial amendments were made. Therefore, I cannot say Y missed any additional provision that was agreed and included in the final Plan. However, the delay caused Mrs X uncertainty about what additional provision Y may have missed because of the Council’s failure to issue his final EHC Plan following the annual review.
A parent/guardian or young person’s appeal right to the Tribunal is engaged when the Council issues the final EHC Plan. I find the Council’s action delayed Mrs X of her right of appeal to the Tribunal if she disagreed with the content of the Plan. The Council’s delays also caused Mrs X distress, frustration and worry.
Mrs X chased the Council for updates following the annual review and when it failed to issue a draft amended Plan and final Plan by dates it said it would. The delay and gaps in communication is fault. Mrs X was already under significant pressure due to delay in the annual review process and the Council’s poor communication caused additional frustration and distress.
Action
To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council will complete the following within one month of the final decision: make Mrs X a symbolic payment of £500 in recognition of the uncertainty about what additional provision Y may have missed because of the Council’s failure to issue his final EHC Plan following the annual review. And to also acknowledge the distress, frustration, worry, and uncertainty caused to Mrs X by the Council’s delay and poor communication.
remind relevant staff to consider and complete the annual review of EHC Plans in accordance with statutory timescales.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Decision I find fault causing injustice to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman