The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint about the delay holding her son’s annual review and finalising his Educational, Health and Care plan. During our investigation the Council apologised to Mrs X and offered to pay her a suitable financial remedy for the delay in holding the annual review, so further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. The delay in finalising the plan has not resulted in a significant injustice, and we have not investigated this matter further.
The complaint
Mrs X complains of the delay in finalising her son, Y’s, Educational, Health and Care (EHC) plan and the delay in holding his annual review.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. 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 injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.
(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council.
Mrs X and the Council now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
In June 2024, Y’s annual review was held, and it was agreed that his EHC plan should be amended.
In August 2024, the Council informed Mrs X that it agreed to an ‘Education Other Than At School’ package, together with a personal budget to start in September 2024.
The Council was delayed finalising Y’s EHC plan, which was not finalised until August 2025. Although this delayed Mrs X’s right of appeal, the Council implemented the agreed provision during this period and Y did not miss any education or provision. On this basis, I do not consider the resulting injustice significant enough to justify further investigation.
The Council should have held Y’s next annual review within 12 months of the previous review, meaning it was due in June 2025. However, the review did not take place until December 2025.
In November 2025, Mrs X complained to the Council. The Council apologised for the delays and said it would arrange the annual review as a matter of priority.
During my investigation, the Council contacted Mrs X to apologise for breaching its statutory duty and for the frustration and anxiety this had has caused. It offered a financial remedy of £600, which is in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies. It also offered a meeting with a senior manager in its SEND service to support Mrs X and Y going forward.
Taking this into account, I consider the injustice to Mrs X and Y has been remedied and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
Decision I have discontinued my investigation. The Council has taken action which has remedied the injustice and no further action by the Ombudsman is needed.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman