Council failed to complete annual review process of ECHP for two years outside statutory timescales, Ombudsman finds

In its report, the Ombudsman also found fault with the council for failing to ensure the child had access to suitable and accessible full-time education and their full Education, Health and Care (EHC) provision for slightly over two academic years.

The Ombudsman recommended that the council pay almost £10,000 for the woman behind the complaint, Miss X.

Miss X had complained that the council failed to secure a suitable school placement for her child, despite a promise to source a specialist school placement in 2024.

Miss X complained that the council failed to provide suitable education and support from within her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Miss X said she had needed to provide activities and education herself because of this.

Outlining the background to the case, the Ombudsman said that in April 2023, the council produced the first EHC Plan for Miss X’s child, Y.

This named a mainstream primary school, School 1, as Y’s educational placement from September 2023 in Section I.

From January 2024, Y started to only attend School 1 in the mornings on a part-time timetable.

School 1 held an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan and confirmed it considered it was no longer suitable to meet Y’s needs and that mainstream education was, in general, not suitable for Y.

In January 2024, the council decided to start consulting Special Educational Needs (SEN) schools for Y.

The first SEN school the council consulted, School 2, told the council Y did not have severe or profound enough difficulties to meet its admissions criteria.

In March 2024 and April 2024, Miss X contacted the council for updates about sourcing an SEN school placement for Y. The council told Miss X it had arranged a Panel meeting for May 2024 for Y.

In May 2024, the Panel meeting noted it was aware that Y was attending School 1 part-time and needed to get Y to return to school full-time.

Miss X requested an update from the council about the Panel meeting in May 2024 and June 2024; the council did not respond.

School 1 held a further annual review of Y’s EHC Plan in June 2024 and noted Y’s attendance had dropped to 55%.

In July 2024, Miss X made a stage one complaint to the council. She said:

• Y was only attending School 1 for the morning each day because the school could not meet Y’s needs.
• It was clear Y needed to be in an SEN school.
• She had been contacting the council for updates since January 2024 but with limited responses, and had been receiving contradictory information from the council and School 1.

The council responded to Miss X’s complaint at stage one and said:

• It accepted it had failed to provide timely responses to Miss X.
• Y had a right to attend school full-time and not just for the morning sessions. The council said it would address this with School 1 in September 2024.
• It offered Miss X £200 for the distress caused by having to chase for responses.

The council consulted three furthers schools for Y in July 2024, all three were SEN schools. Schools 4 and 5 responded in July 2024 to advise they were over-capacity. School 6 responded in August 2024 to advise it was also over-capacity.

In August 2024, Miss X requested consideration of her complaint at stage two.

The council provided a stage two complaint response in September 2024. While it upheld Miss X’s complaint about the failure to find a suitable school placement, it said it could not move Y immediately.

Miss X continued to make complaints to the council.

As of the end of April 2026, Y remained enrolled at School 1. In July 2026, the council produced an updated amended Final EHC Plan for Y.

Considering Miss X’s complaint in relation to the EHC Plan, the Ombudsman said: “The council had twelve months from issuing the first EHC Plan for Y, in April 2023, to complete an annual review of this EHC Plan. This included holding an annual review meeting and sending a letter to Miss X advising of its plan to amend, maintain or cease Y’s EHC Plan. The council took until July 2026 to produce an updated Final EHC Plan for Y despite School 1 holding three annual review meetings during this time.

“The council’s failure to complete the annual review process means it has failed to meet the statutory timescales by slightly over two years as of July 2026. This delay was fault.”

The Ombudsman added: “This delay of slightly over two years has meant that Miss X has experienced frustration and inconvenience and has also delayed her appeal rights to the Tribunal about the school placement.”

Turning to the issue of access to suitable education, the Ombudsman said: “Since April 2024, the council has failed to ensure Y had access to suitable and full-time education. The council failed to keep Y’s part-time timetable under review with School 1, failed to work with Miss X to draw up plans to try to promote Y back into full-time education, failed to find a suitable SEN school placement for Y and failed to discuss expectations and consequence of Y’s absences from school.

“The council also failed to make a formal written decision about whether Y needs Section 19 provision of education. The council’s inaction has caused Y to miss full-time education which has also prevented access to their full EHC Plan provision for slightly over two full academic years. This was fault.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to:

• Provide a payment to Miss X of £1,500 for the inconvenience and frustration caused and the impact of having potentially out-of-date and unsuitable provision and school placement within the EHC Plan, as well as the impact of the delayed appeal rights caused by its delay of slightly over two years outside the statutory timescales in reviewing and updating her child’s EHC Plan.
• Provide a payment to Miss X of £7,800 for the impact on Y caused by the council’s failure to ensure Y had access to suitable full-time education and their full Education, Health and Care Plan provision for slightly over two full academic years.
• Provide Miss X with a payment of £500 for the injustice caused to Miss X by its poor communication and delayed contacts.
• Provide an apology to Miss X for the inconvenience and frustration Miss X experienced and her child’s missed educational provision caused by the council’s fault.

The London Borough of Lewisham has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson