Council at fault for combining annual review for ECHP with separate process of tribunal appeal: Ombudsman

In light of the authority’s failings, the Ombudsman recommended Worcestershire pay £5,000 to remedy the injustice caused.

The man behind the complaint, Mr X, complained that the council failed to provide his child’s EHC Plan provision as set out in the April 2023 plan.

He also complained about the failure of the council to adhere to the statutory EHC Plan annual review process and timescales.

Outlining the background to the complaint, the Ombudsman said the council issued the first EHC Plan for Mr X’s child, Y, in April 2023. This named Y’s school in Section I and detailed Y’s school should provide the full Section F provision.

In November 2023, Mr X asked for an urgent review of Y’s EHC Plan. He said Y’s school had not put any of the provision from Y’s EHC Plan in place since April 2023.

The council issued an amended Final EHC Plan for Y which included extra content for Section G but did not amend Sections I or F.

The Ombudsman noted that the council issued this “outside a formal annual review process”.

Mr X continued to contact the council to advise Y’s school had not put in place the Section F provision from the EHC Plan. He lodged an appeal to the Tribunal in December 2023 about the failure of the school to deliver the EHC Plan provision.

The council held an annual review for Y’s EHC Plan in April 2024.

At the start of May 2024, the council wrote to Mr X to advise it proposed to amend Y’s EHC Plan following the annual review meeting. It said it would make any changes as part of the outcome of the appeal to the Tribunal.

Mr X withdrew his appeal with the Tribunal at the end of the month.

Y finished at sixth form in the summer of 2024 and started a university course in the autumn of 2024.

In March 2025, the council decided to cease Y’s EHC Plan and told Mr X about his appeal rights.

Mr X lodged a complaint with the council and raised an appeal with the Tribunal about cessation of the EHC Plan.

In its stage 1 response, the council said:

1. It held an annual review meeting for Y’s EHC Plan in April 2024 and said it would amend Y’s EHC Plan following this meeting. The council said it did not make the amendments to the EHC Plan because Mr X withdrew the tribunal appeal.
2. Following Mr X’s contact in September 2023 about lack of EHC Plan provision it contacted Y’s school and was satisfied the school had put the provision in place.
3. It arranged an annual review meeting following Mr X’s request for an urgent annual review. The council said this was delayed because Mr X said he could not attend in December 2023 and because of the tribunal appeal.
4. Following Y’s examinations in 2024 they left school and started to attend university; this meant the EHC Plan no longer applied.

Considering the complaint, the Ombudsman found that although the council held the annual review meeting for Y’s EHC Plan within 12 months (in April 2024), it issued its decision to amend two weeks outside the 12-month timescale, which was fault.

The Ombudsman added: “When the council issued its decision to amend, it failed to provide any details of its proposed amendments to the plan and instead said it would decide this as part of the tribunal appeal. The council should still be completing the annual review process as a separate process to the tribunal appeal. Combining the two and failing to carry out the annual review process was fault.”

Turning to EHC Plan provision, the Ombudsman noted that the council had an “absolute, non-delegable duty” to secure Y’s Section F EHC Plan provision from production of the EHC Plan in April 2023.

The report added: “We do not expect a council to maintain a watching brief over a school for delivery of a child’s EHC Plan. However, a council should be investigating a person’s concerns that an EHC Plan is not being provided.”

The council was found at fault for failing to ensure Y’s EHC Plan provision was in place from April 2023 until the end of the academic year 2023/2024.

Finally, considering the period between 2024 and 2025, the Ombudsman found fault with the council’s “failure to prepare” for Y’s transition from sixth form when it completed the April 2024 annual review, “which resulted in a situation in which it was obliged to deliver EHC Plan provision which it could not facilitate delivery of because Y was at university”.

The Ombudsman added: “The Council’s fault caused uncertainty and frustration to both Mr X and Y about what support, if any, Y would receive at university. This has not caused lost provision for Y because the tribunal decided to strike out Mr X’s appeal because Y entered higher education and was not entitled to the EHC Plan provision since September 2024. The tribunal said the appeal had no chance of success and denied the appeal to the upper tribunal; this was a decision for the tribunal to make which simply informs our findings.”

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

• Provide an apology to Mr X and Y for the distress, frustration and missed EHC Plan provision caused by its actions.
• Provide a payment to Mr X of £1,000 for the avoidable distress and frustration it has caused.
• Provide a payment to Mr X of £4,000 for Y’s missed Education, Health and Care Plan provision since April 2023.
• Complete staff training for how it investigates, checks and records that Section F provision from a child’s EHC Plan is in place when a new or amended plan is issued, during the annual review process and when a person raises concern with it about provision not being in place.
• Complete staff training for how it processes annual reviews of an EHC Plan when there is an appeal to the Tribunal or when a child is due to transition to a stage in life which would bring into question the responsibility to continue an EHC Plan.

Adam Johnston, Director of Children’s Services at Worcestershire County Council said: “We recognise the impact our actions had on this family and sincerely apologise for the distress caused. We had already strengthened our systems and practice prior to the Ombudsman final decision, and we are on a continuous improvement journey to ensure children and families receive consistent, timely support.”

Lottie Winson