Summary: We uphold Mrs E’s complaint finding there were several flaws in the Council’s oversight of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. These meant that for over two years there was no satisfactory review of the Plan which became out of date. We found this caused injustice to Mrs E and her child, including as distress. The Council has accepted these findings and at the end of this statement, we set out the action it has agreed to take to remedy this injustice and improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mrs E complained about several matters, connected with the Council’s management of her child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan (I have called her child ‘F’). In particular, that during the 2022/23 and 2023/24 academic years the Council failed to ensure the review and updating of F’s EHC Plan. Specifically, Mrs E complains that:
1. she did not know of any annual review of F’s EHC Plan taking place during the 2022/23 academic year;
2. the Council later told her a review took place in November 2022. But she did not learn about this until November 2023. The Council said it first told her about the review in April 2023, but Mrs E did not receive that letter;
3. after the Council wrote to her in November 2023, Mrs E asked it to amend the Plan to include specialist advice from an Occupational Therapist and Speech and Language Therapist she received in 2021. However, the Council declined to do so. It also failed to issue any amended final Plan after receiving her comments. It commissioned new specialist reports but failed to chase these nor ensure they were fit for purpose;
4. during the 2023/24 academic year there was again no annual review of F’s EHC Plan. In June 2024 the school sent details to Mrs E of an annual review it said had taken place. But it did not invite her to a review meeting nor provide detail of any consultation it undertook before the review;
5. during the 2023/24 academic year, F’s school also told Mrs E the Council would complete a reassessment of F’s education, health and care needs. Mrs E says the Council did not tell this to her about this;
6. F has not received the speech and language therapy provision set out in their EHC Plan;
7. the Council failed to answer a complaint she made in December 2023.
2. Mrs E said because of these matters, F had not received an education that met their needs. And because F had not received an updated EHC Plan, Mrs E could not appeal to a Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal to ask it to make changes to the Plan. She also said dealing with these matters caused her significant stress and anxiety, contributing to poor health.

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. 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)
5. 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)
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. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
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(i), 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. Before issuing this decision statement, I considered:

• Mrs E’s written complaint to the Ombudsman and any supporting information she provided;
• correspondence exchanged between Mrs E and the Council about the matters covered by the complaint, which pre-dated our investigation;
• information provided by the Council in reply to enquiries I made;
• relevant law and Government guidance referred to in the text below;
• relevant guidance published by this office, referred to in the text below.

11. I also gave Mrs E and the Council a chance to comment on a draft version of the decision statement. I took account of any response I received before finalising the wording of the decision statement.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance around special educational needs

12. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The Plan, set out in sections, explains the child’s needs and arrangements made to meet them. We cannot direct changes to the sections about a child’s needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only a SEND Tribunal or the council can do this.
13. The council must arrange for a review of an EHC Plan 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 take place. The process only completes when the council issues a decision about the review.
14. That decision should follow within four weeks of a review meeting. The Council must notify the child’s parent of its decision to maintain, amend or discontinue the EHC Plan. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
15. If the Council decides to amend an EHC Plan, it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and details of proposed amendments. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law says it must also send this information within four weeks of the review meeting.
16. Where the Council amends an EHC Plan following a review, it has 12 weeks from the date of the review meeting to issue a revised final version. A parent can appeal to a SEND Tribunal after receiving a final amended Plan if they do not agree with:

• how it describes the child’s needs; and/or
• the special educational provision specified; and/or
• the named school or placement (or if it does not name a school or placement).

17. Where a child with an EHC Plan moves to another local authority area, the ‘old’ authority must transfer their Plan to that new authority. Usually this will be on the day of the move unless the council has less than 15 working days’ notice of the move, in which case it must do so within 15 working days of learning of the move.

The key facts

18. F has special educational needs and has had an EHC Plan for several years. Relevant to this complaint, the Council amended F’s EHC Plan in February 2021, when they were in Year 6 of their education. The amended Plan named a specialist school F would attend from September 2021. The Plan identified that F needed speech and language therapy (SLT). It said an NHS Trust would deliver this and listed the provision in Section G (covering health needs) in the Plan.
19. The Council says F’s school reviewed their EHC Plan in November 2021. It then reviewed the Plan again in November 2022. I asked the Council to provide me with a copy of the 2022 review paperwork. The school’s records showed it did not invite Mrs E to a meeting but said that it spoke to her by telephone. Mrs E told me she did not know that conversation formed part of a review. The School suggested amending F’s EHC Plan and sent a copy with proposed amendments to the Council. This left Section G unchanged.
20. In November 2023 Mrs E complained to the Council. She said the Council had failed to amend F’s EHC Plan since February 2021. She considered it was now out of date and raised concerns about the education F received.
21. The Council acknowledged the complaint and said it intended updating F’s EHC Plan following the November 2022 annual review. But it had not yet completed this work. It said that it had sent Mrs E a decision notice, explaining its intent to amend F’s Plan in April 2023. It also said that it understood F’s school wanted to now arrange another review.
22. Mrs E said she had not received any correspondence in April 2023. So, the Council sent her a copy of its letter, with the paperwork it received from the school in November 2022 including its proposed amendments to F’s Plan. As part of this investigation the Council has provided a screenprint which it says shows it sent the letter originally in April 2023.
23. When Mrs E received the November 2023 copy, she commented on the proposed amendments. She also said there had been no review meeting in November 2022, saying her only contact with the school was by telephone. She said the Plan needed further updating, to reflect F’s occupational therapy (OT), SLT and physiotherapy (PT) needs. She gave the Council copies of OT and SLT advice given in 2021, asking it to update the Plan to include this. The Council declined to do so, saying these reports were now out-of-date. Instead, it offered to commission new OT and PT reports.
24. In December 2023, the Council replied to Mrs E’s complaint. It recognised “unacceptable oversight” of F’s case. It said this was because the SEN service was under exceptional pressure because of rising demand. It said it would now wait for the specialist OT and PT advice before issuing an amended EHC Plan for F. In the same month it wrote to an NHS organisation providing these services and asked it for this advice. In its complaint reply, the Council offered to issue F’s Plan more quickly if Mrs E preferred, so she could exercise appeal rights. Mrs E sent an email in December 2023 saying she did not want the 2023/24 review to proceed without the specialist advice.
25. In January 2024, Mrs E escalated her complaint. She remained dissatisfied with the Council’s oversight of F’s case. She said she had not asked the Council to delay issuing F’s EHC Plan. She was also unhappy the Council had declined to update F’s EHC Plan with the specialist advice received in 2021.
26. Separately, between November 2023 and January 2024, Mrs E had contact with a local NHS Foundation Trust. She complained it had not provided the SLT specified in F’s 2021 EHC Plan. The Trust said it was not responsible for ensuring F received the services in their EHC Plan, as the Council had that responsibility.
27. In February 2024, Mrs E chased the Council for an update as she had heard nothing further about the specialist advice it had asked for or about a review of F’s Plan. She said she intended to complain further at the Council’s failure to ensure a review of F’s EHC Plan. She also chased a reply to the complaint she had escalated in January. Mrs E sent further emails chasing a reply in March and April 2024.
28. In May 2024, F’s school contacted the Council to say that Mrs E had told it the Council was reassessing F’s EHC Plan. The Council replied saying this was wrong. It had asked for updated OT and PT advice to inform the next review of F’s EHC Plan. During this exchange it asked the school about any SLT it provided to F.
29. Next, the school sent the Council a copy of annual review paperwork, implying it had reviewed F’s EHC Plan in May 2024. The paperwork said that Mrs E had not been part of the review and nor did the NHS Trust named in Section G “attend or send a report”. The ‘review’ paperwork restated the school’s understanding the Council was reassessing F’s needs and said F’s Plan needed further amendments.
30. The same month, Mrs E also received correspondence from F’s school saying it had completed a review of F’s EHC Plan. This led Mrs E to make a second complaint to the Council as she was not involved in any review. She also said the papers provided by the school did not detail F’s SLT or that F’s education met the outcomes set out in the Plan.
31. The Council replied later that month to explain the school made an “administrative error”. It had not carried out a review of F’s EHC Plan.
32. Mrs E then escalated her second complaint, saying the school had failed to carry out a review during the 2023/24 academic year. She also said the school had told her the Council had begun a reassessment of F’s education, health and care needs, but the Council had not told her this. Mrs E also raised again her concern about F’s lack of SLT provision.
33. In July 2024, the Council chased the NHS organisation it had contacted in December 2023, wanting an update on the OT and PT advice it had asked for.
34. In August 2024, the Council gave its final response to Mrs E’s second complaint. This said the school had held a ‘professionals meeting’ to review F’s progress in May 2024, but this was not an annual review. It noted an OT had now provided advice and that Mrs E had raised questions about that advice, which were under consideration. It noted that F was also due to have a PT appointment. The Council said it hoped to complete an updated version of F’s Plan by “early Autumn”. The Council apologised for delay but said that it did not think F’s education disadvantaged as a result.
35. In September 2024 the Council, school and Mrs E exchanged emails about F’s SLT needs. The Council clarified the school has its own SLT on site and obtained general information about their specialist knowledge. The school made general comments on its view of F’s presenting needs. During this investigation, the Council said that given this information from the school, it no longer thought F needed SLT provision. It said with hindsight it should have amended the Plan to remove this provision following the November 2022 review.
36. In December 2024, Mrs E moved out of the Borough to a neighbouring Council area. The Council wrote to her and said it had sent to the new authority:

• a copy of F’s EHC Plan dated February 2021;
• a copy of “the most recent draft you referred to as November 2023” – I assumed this is the version of the Plan where the school proposed amendments in November 2022;
• a copy of a ‘draft’ amended EHC Plan incorporating comments from the 2024 OT report in red ink. This showed the changes proposed by the school in November 2022 accepted. The document is however in a slightly different format to how it appeared at that time. This version of the plan has also deleted the SLT provision in Section G. It sent a copy of this version with its email to Mrs E.

37. Separately in December 2024, Mrs E also received correspondence from the school in connection with another review of F’s EHC Plan. It included a copy of F’s EHC Plan in the same format as in 2022. This version also shows the changes the school proposed in November 2022 as accepted. It also has further proposed changes in red type. However, these are not the same as the proposed changes sent to Mrs E by the Council a few days previously, which are not included in the school's version. The Plan also shows the Section G provision from the February 2021 version unchanged.
38. So currently Mrs E remains concerned that F has not received an updated EHC Plan since February 2021. She does not consider F therefore has a Plan that accurately reflects their needs for OT, PT and SLT. She has received no updated advice from a PT despite the Council requesting this in November 2023. And she continues to believe F needs SLT provision and there has been no professional review of their need in that area. Mrs E also questions if F’s school has done enough to meet the education outcomes in F’s Plan.
39. In general comments on the complaint the Council has said that it has invested recently to improve its management information system. This will allow SEN caseworkers and managers to identify when EHC Plan reviews become overdue. It says that it will also introduce a “clear monitoring cycle” to try and avoid a repeat of the delay in this case which it says took place against a backdrop of “backlogs and poor oversight”.

My findings

Jurisdiction considerations

40. The term jurisdiction refers to our ability to investigate a complaint.
41. I decided to investigate events from the start of the 2022/23 academic year. Mrs E complained to us in June 2024, so this was more than 12 months after this date. However, I decided there were special reasons justifying investigation back to this time.
42. Clearly from November 2023, Mrs E had become dissatisfied with the Council’s monitoring of F’s EHC Plan. At that time, she did not know of the school’s actions 12 months previously when it sent review paperwork to the Council. Nor had she received the Council’s response to that sent in April 2023. I considered given these gaps in her knowledge; it would not be fair to her to decline to investigate the sequence of events from the time F’s EHC Plan review fell due in November 2022.

The complaint Mrs E did not know of any annual review of F’s EHC Plan during the 2022/23 academic year

43. The Council was not directly responsible for the school’s decision not to invite Mrs E to a review meeting and instead conduct a telephone conversation with her. I noted here that Mrs E also did not know that her conversation formed part of a review.
44. But the Council did have responsibility for ensuring the review process completed, when it received notice from the school. So, it had oversight of the review, which meant it should have noticed any flaws in the review process.
45. Those were several flaws here. Specifically, that the school did not:

• properly consult Mrs E as part of F’s review;
• provide Mrs E with details before the review of the school’s assessment of how it met F’s needs;
• record asking the NHS Trust named in Section G of F’s Plan to contribute to the review;
• convene a review meeting.

46. I found the Council was therefore at fault for not identifying any of these flaws and not challenging the school on its practice.
47. The injustice this caused Mrs E was that she could not take part in a review of her child’s education. She could not provide or seek information about F’s progress, nor ask questions. That was a source of distress to her, which the Council should have remedied but failed to do so.

The complaint the Council did not tell Mrs E the outcome of the review the school carried out in November 2022 and / or delayed in doing so

48. The Council said it wrote to Mrs E in April 2023, advising it would amend F’s EHC Plan. This was six months after the review took place. I found fault for this delay. Even if there had been no flaws in the school’s review, the Council should have made its decision on whether to maintain, amend or discontinue F’s EHC Plan within four weeks.
49. Mrs E questions if the Council did write to her in April 2023, as she did not receive that letter. I did not think the evidence the Council provided me, showing it sent the letter for printing, offered definite proof that it posted it to her. However, it was enough to persuade me that it was more likely than not that it wrote to her, and I noted it correctly addressed the letter. It was also plausible the reason Mrs E did not receive the letter was due to error by the postal service. So, I did not find the Council at fault for Mrs E not receiving its letter.
50. However, there was further fault by the Council as it failed to issue a final amended EHC Plan after sending Mrs E its proposed amendments.
51. These delays caused injustice to Mrs E and F. The school may have aimed to provide teaching for F in line with the proposed amendments to their EHC Plan. But we must regard it as potentially harmful to a child’s education if they do not have a Plan that is up to date. In addition, the drift and delay meant Mrs E missed the chance to comment on the school’s suggested changes at the time it proposed these. Nor could she make any suggestions of her own, such as inclusion of information provided in the 2021 specialist reports. I considered that missed opportunity for her, a source of distress.

The complaint the Council failed to amend F’s EHC Plan after November 2023 with information from reports obtained in 2021

52. The drift and delay continued after November 2023, when Mrs E finally learnt of the review the school said it carried out 12 months previously. The Council purposively delayed at this point as a further review of F’s EHC Plan fell due. It knew Mrs E wanted it to reconsider specialist provision F needed in the areas of occupational therapy, speech and language therapy and physiotherapy. She suggested it include information contained in specialist reports from 2021. But the Council felt this information was out-of-date and so said it would gain updated advice instead.
53. I could see why, in these circumstances, the Council thought it administratively convenient to delay further. That way it could carry forward proposed amendments from the flawed 2022 review and wrap them up with any amendments arising from the 2023 review and issue a single amended draft EHC Plan. The alternative was to issue a final EHC Plan flowing from the flawed 2022 review, which would then probably need further amendment because of the 2023 review.
54. Also, in adopting this approach the Council believed it kept to Mrs E’s wishes at the time. Her email of December 2023 asked the Council not to issue a draft EHC Plan until it had obtained the further specialist advice. However, she was referring to the review for the 2023/24 academic year. She was not asking the Council to delay issue of a finalised Plan following the November 2022 review. She later clarified this point when she complained.
55. But while I can understand the Council’s motives, I do not consider the law gave it the choice to hold fire on issuing an amended EHC Plan. It must work to a hard target, not an aspirational target, that it should issue a final amended EHC Plan within 12 weeks of a review. So, it was fault for the Council to still not issue an amended final plan for F once Mrs E had commented on the draft version it sent her in November 2023.
56. Had the Council ensured the 2023/24 review cycle completed promptly, I would say no or limited injustice arose from this specific fault. Because even if the Council had issued a finalised version of F’s EHC Plan around December 2023 the Plan would have remained in flux. Because, as noted, the next review cycle had come around and the Plan would have further amendment as a result.
57. Although I noted here Mrs E would have had an opportunity to appeal the content of any Plan issued around December 2023. This could have included appealing the Council’s decision not to incorporate the specialist advice from 2021, she wanted including in F’s Plan. However, I am not clear this would have brought any practical benefit to Mrs E given the Council had also committed to obtaining more up to date advice. But it was still part of Mrs E’s injustice that throughout the events covered by this complaint, F did not have an EHC Plan, Mrs E could appeal.
58. And the Council did not ensure the 2023/24 review cycle completed promptly. Having asked for specialist OT and PT advice in December 2023, the Council failed to chase that for seven months or try and obtain that advice from another source. At the same time, it also failed to obtain an update on F’s SLT needs. All of which resulted in more drift and delay. That was a fault.
59. Indeed, it remained the case the Council had failed to ensure it had that specialist advice it requested at the point Mrs E moved house in December 2024. While it obtained OT advice it was unclear if this was in its final format. And it had failed to obtain PT advice at all. That was a fault.
60. It had also sent no further amended draft EHC Plan to Mrs E despite its assurances it would do so. That too was a fault. I recognised that at the point Mrs E moved address it provided her with an amended version of the EHC Plan. But this was for ‘information only’ and did not represent a formal consultation on a draft version of the Plan. I return below to discuss the implications of this document.
61. The faults set out at paragraphs 58 to 60 caused further injustice for Mrs E and F. For F, the injustice is again as I described in paragraph 51. While for Mrs E this further delay added to her distress, as yet more frustration.

The complaint there was no annual review of F’s EHC Plan during the 2023/24 academic year and the complaint the Council failed to tell Mrs E it was reassessing F’s needs

62. Compounding further the faults identified above, F’s school again failed to follow a proper review process during the 2023/24 academic year.
63. It should have arranged for the review of F’s EHC Plan around November 2023. That it did not do so may be due to the events described above and the mistaken approach taken by the Council.
64. The 2023/24 review should have gone ahead and the Council should have impressed on both the school and Mrs E the need for this. There would be nothing preventing it arranging a further review of F’s Plan, or making further amendments to F’s EHC Plan, once it received specialist advice.
65. As time passed, and no review took place, the school gained the impression the Council was not awaiting a review of F’s EHC Plan but undertaking a full reassessment. The Council corrected this. But given the school said that Mrs E gave it that information, I do not understand why the Council did not also use that opportunity to clarify its position with her.
66. It then missed a further opportunity to explain the correct position to Mrs E when it received papers from the school suggesting it had carried out a review of F’s EHC Plan in May 2024. Mrs E noted the school saying it understood the Council was reassessing F’s needs. This caused her confusion along with the information another review had reportedly taken place from which she had been excluded.
67. I recognised the Council tried to resolve this latter issue, advising no review had taken place and references to it were an “administrative error”. I agreed no lawful review had taken place, but given the school had in 2022 also carried out an improper review I was sceptical of this explanation.
68. I considered the Council again lacked oversight here. First, by allowing the drift and delay in the review process set out above. Second, by not challenging the school for completing review paperwork and not involving the parent in that review at all. I also note here that while the review paperwork noted there was no report from the NHS Trust about the provision in Section G of F’s EHC Plan, it was not clear if it had invited the Trust to comment.
69. The effect of these faults was to add to Mrs E’s distress. She became further marginalised from any discussion around her child’s progress and experienced understandable and unnecessary confusion.

The complaint that F has not received SLT

70. Leading on from the above, another area where the Council failed to provide oversight was in ensuring there was a review of F’s SLT needs and provision. The EHC Plan issued in 2021 made an NHS Trust responsible for delivery. But it is the Council that has responsibility for ensuring a review of any provision set out in an EHC Plan.
71. Because of its failure to properly oversee a review of F’s EHC Plan in both 2022/23 and 2023/24 the Council failed to ensure there was a review of F’s SLT provision. That was a fault.
72. The Council argued initially that no injustice arose from this because it considered F no longer needed specialist SLT provision in their EHC Plan. Further, that this was the case throughout the events covered by this complaint.
73. I could not say if the Council was correct here. I respected this was its professional judgement based on the advice it received from F’s school. But I also respected that Mrs E did not agree. She had reasons for thinking SLT still needed and cited evidence in support of her position.
74. This was not a matter I could settle because it was now for Mrs E’s new local authority to decide the content of F’s EHC Plan. I noted Mrs E will have the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal if she does not consider the final Plan meets F’s needs.
75. I could not say therefore the injustice resulting from this fault was a loss or shortfall in F’s provision given the dispute over whether F needed the provision over the time covered by the complaint. But the lack of any adequate review of F’s possible need for SLT for over two years, meant there was uncertainty. F had potentially lost provision and that was a source of distress. While more distress arose from Mrs E having lost the opportunity to take any dispute over F’s provision to an appeal.
76. In addition, consideration of this issue drew attention to how the Council had further complicated matters for Mrs E and F on moving house. When F moved to their new local authority area, they should have done so with an up-to-date EHC Plan the Council could transfer. But instead, at the time of the move, F still had an EHC Plan unamended since February 2021 which had not been properly reviewed since that time. It also did not contain the up-to-date specialist advice the Council said it would obtain in November 2023.
77. To complicate matters further, in December 2024 Mrs E received different versions of F’s EHC Plan from both Council and school showing further proposed amendments. I accepted the school may have acted independently of the Council, so the Council might not have known of the school’s proposed amendments before Mrs E did. But this turn of events caused further inevitable confusion, which stemmed ultimately from the Council’s loss of the control over F’s case.
78. Mrs E and F faced further inevitable delay while their new authority had the challenge of regaining control. While it did so, Mrs E could not pursue any concerns about the provision or outcomes in F’s Plan through an appeal. As I noted above this too was a cause of distress to Mrs E and of potential harm to F, separable from any other injustice identified above.

The complaint the Council failed to answer Mrs E’s complaint made in December 2023

79. As the chronology above explained, Mrs E effectively made two complaints about the Council’s service, which we considered during this investigation. The first began in November 2023 and concerned the Council’s failure to amend F’s EHC Plan from February 2021. The second she made in June 2024 and concerned the lack of a review of F’s EHC Plan during the 2023/24 academic year and the school’s purported review in May 2024. Mrs E escalated both complaints, but only her second complaint completed the Council procedure.
80. Mrs E’s escalation of her first complaint, made in December 2023 did not receive a reply. This was despite Mrs E chasing a reply on at least three occasions. That was a fault.
81. The injustice this caused Mrs E was that she had unnecessary time and trouble pursuing her complaint before she contacted this office.

Back to top

Agreed action

82. During investigation the Council s recognised fault in its handling of F’s case. In particular, for the delay in issuing a draft amended EHC Plan. It suggested a symbolic payment of £500 in recognition of the injustice caused.
83. While I welcomed this, it flowed from my findings above that I did not think the Council had gone far enough in recognising the extent of the fault identified above. Nor, in recognising the injustice that flowed from that fault. The Council accepted this judgment, and has agreed that in order to remedy Mrs E’s and F’s injustice, it will, within 20 working days of this decision:
1. provide a written apology to Mrs E. This will accept the findings of this investigation and take account of our published guidance on remedies where it refers to ‘making an effective apology’ (see section 3.2 Guidance on remedies - Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman);
2. make a symbolic payment to Mrs E of £2000 (see explanation below);
3. clarify in writing what information it has provided Mrs E’s new local authority about F’s EHC Plan and give her a copy of that.
84. The symbolic payment agreed replaces that proposed by the Council and is not in addition to it. I considered the amount fair having taken account of the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and calculated the payment as follows:

• for the distress caused to Mrs E from the Council’s failure to monitor the 2022/23 review process, £250;
• for the distress caused by the delay in the Council acting on the November 2022 review paperwork sent by the school, £250;
• for F not having an up to date EHC Plan and the potential harm caused by that during the period November 2022-November 2023, £250;
• for the further distress caused by delay in the Council not issuing a draft EHC Plan for the period December 2023 – December 2024, another £250;
• for F not having an up to date EHC Plan and the potential harm caused by that during the period December 2023 to December 2024, another £250;
• for the distress caused to Mrs E by the Council’s failure to ensure a review during the 2023 / 24 academic year, £150;
• for the distress arising from uncertainty because of the Council’s failure to monitor F’s SLT provision and Mrs E’s loss of appeal rights, £250;
• for the distress arising from the Council’s failure to ensure F had an up to date EHC Plan at the date she moved home, and the complications caused as a result, £200;
• for the time and trouble arising from the Council’s poor handing of Mrs E’s complaint, £150.

85. The Council also agreed it would make service improvements as a result of this complaint, to try and prevent a repeat of the fault identified. Within three months of this decision, it will:

• liaise with F’s school, highlighting our concerns at its handling of the review of F’s EHC Plan. As this is a specialist school, where more pupils are likely to have EHC Plans, the Council should find out if there have been systemic flaws in the arranging and carrying out of annual reviews. It should ensure the school understands its requirement to consult parents on annual reviews, obtain reports from any third parties commissioned to deliver services named in EHC Plans (as part of the review process) and arrange meetings inviting all relevant parties;
• provide us with an update of its implementation of those steps summarised in paragraph 39. We want assurance the Council has systems in place that allow its SEND service to identify when a child’s EHC Plan review falls due, and when a review becomes overdue. It must also have recording in place that allows it to identify when it is missing statutory targets and any upward or downward trend in that. In addition, it must have procedures in place to expedite reviews where they become overdue and expedite decision making where the Council has exceeded the statutory targets. Its letter to us must therefore cover these matters.

86. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with all the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

87. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Mrs E and F. The Council accepted this finding and agreed to take action that I considered would remedy that injustice and improve its service. Consequently, I could complete my investigation satisfied with its response.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman