Lies, damned lies, and inadequate fines: Why councils don’t care about breaking SEND laws—and must not be rewarded by scrapping EHCPs

Contents

Stockton-on-Tees in Durham is reportedly where the most northerly fossilised remains of a hippopotamus have ever been discovered. If they’d dug further, they may have also found the fossilised remains of 100 children’s EHCPs, which the local council claimed, falsely, to have kept up to date.

Stockton-on-Tees local authority has been fined an inadequate sum after sending “mendacious” (lying) letters to these 100 families, falsely claiming EHCP annual reviews had been carried out. Investigating, the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) said the parent who made the original complaint had been caused severe distress, frustration, and uncertainty, and the young person had been denied opportunities to have their special educational needs met.

The LGSCO investigation began after “Mrs X” complained her child “Y” had been left without the provision stated in their EHCP, and without any education at all, for extended periods. In May 2023, the new EHCP containing the Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) was issued. It specified small group or individual tuition, including visual aids, ICT packages and adapted learning to support their SEND needs. The plan recommended a transfer to a specialist post-16 provision that September, saying consultations remained ongoing.

Instead, the Ombudsman found no evidence that Stockton ever tried to secure the EOTAS package in the plan, meaning the young person missed out on three and a half terms of education, causing distress, uncertainty, and lost opportunities. Additionally, after all the specialist post-16 placements consulted said they couldn’t meet Y’s needs, there is no record of the LA seeking alternative placements. This meant Y had no college place for that September. The LA then waited almost a year before asking again about Y’s post-16 plans. Mrs X said she wanted Y to have a residential specialist placement from September 2024, but that college also could not offer a place.

The illusion of the annual review

For two years, Mrs X said the council sent her letters claiming to have carried out an annual review, when in fact no review meetings had been held. The LA even claimed one of the reviews was on a date that turned out to be a Saturday, and that it had consulted the school before deciding there was no need to update the EHCP. However, the teenager wasn’t even in school at the time.

The council admitted it used “standard letters” to record decisions before statutory deadlines, even when the actual review process hadn’t happened, which is unlawful.

That June, the LA did hold a review, at which Y’s parents told the caseworker they felt they had to end the EHCP, having been let down by the council, with Y having met none of the stated outcomes. The following month, the LA wrote to ask if Y was planning to return to education, but Mrs X said the wording didn’t reflect that she’d only suggested ending the EHCP in frustration at a lack of action, which had made it impossible for Y to complete their education.

The LA offered a payment after her complaint, but Mrs X instead complained to the LGSCO.

The council confesses it lied to 99 other children over missing EHCP annual reviews

“While on paper it appears the council is meeting its obligations, in reality it is unaware of the progress of nearly 100 of the young people it is responsible for.”
LGSCO

That’s bad enough, but worse was to follow. When Mrs X first complained about the LA not correctly following the annual review process, she had no idea of the can of worms that would be uncovered.

During the LGSCO investigation, the council finally confessed it had also lied in letters to almost 100 further families between July 2024 and May 2025, falsely claiming their child’s annual review had taken place.

“I am alarmed that the council would send such mendacious letters to nearly 100 families of vulnerable children saying review meetings have taken place when the council was aware they haven’t. The council told me it issued the letters to comply with its statutory duties – but its duty is to carry out the yearly reviews, not to untruthfully say it has done so.
“We recognise councils are under increasing pressure to complete the various stages of the EHC process in the timescales required by law given the significant increase in children and young people with EHC plans. Nevertheless, we must hold councils to account. We welcome the council’s openness to telling us about the letters it sent to other families.”
Amerdeep Somal, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman

The (so-called) remedy

After the investigation, the Ombudsman ordered Stockton-on-Tees council to:

Apologise to the family
Pay £5,700 for missed education and a further £200 for the frustration caused by false review letters
Write to the 99 other affected families, apologise, and offer interim reviews
Create an action plan to ensure every child gets a real annual review each year
Overhaul EOTAS procedures so provision is arranged, monitored, and concerns acted on
Fix its post-16 placement process to meet statutory deadlines

Not-so-annual reviews

Annual reviews are supposed to be, well, annual. Without a review, how does the LA or anyone else know if any improvements have been made, and what further or amended goals should be added? However, annual reviews, we have found, are rarely either annual or within timescales. At SNJ, we have also noticed how, while LAs are deathly slow at annual reviews, when it comes to ending plans, they’re pretty nifty–and this is by design.

EHCP Annual Review: Our stats show there’s nothing annual about them…

What kind of “redress” is this?

Less than £6000 for such egregious failings seems like a complete bargain. What will the other 99 families get for being openly lied to? How was their children’s education affected? If the council hadn’t confessed, it’s quite likely the LGSCO wouldn’t have found out at all.

And we know it’s not just education. Similar failures are made in social care, both for adults and children. These are failures that can have serious repercussions for young people with SEND, but may result in nothing more than a slap on the wrist for the LA. This is not accountability. And without EHCPs, there will be even less.

It’s clear councils do not care about breaking the law when it relates to providing services for vulnerable people—of any age. Without EHCPs in mainstream, you won’t be able to complain if the LA didn’t follow the process properly because there will be no process to ignore. How serendipitous for Stockton-on-Tees and councils like it, which, even with EHCPs, can just shrug and look a bit sheepish when caught out over widespread dishonesty. Or do you think it didn’t know its dirty little secret was not an innocent error?

Given Stockton-on-Tees is one of the Department for Education’s “Change Programme Partners” for its SEND and AP Improvement Plan, we are assuming it will be sharing its learning about why LAs shouldn’t lie to families, as part of its contribution to improving SEND…

Promoted

Who is accountable for EOTAS?

If your child’s EHCP names EOTAS, the council is legally responsible for arranging and funding the provision. This duty is non-delegable — meaning they can’t blame anyone else if it doesn’t happen. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)
LGSCO report on the case

The Ombudsman accepted that it’s “not practical” for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHCP. However, it considers that LAs should be able to, “demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty.”

The report noted that “at a minimum” it expects LAs to have systems in place to

check the special educational provision is in place when an EHCP is issued or there is a change in educational placement;
check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and
quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time.

What to do if this happens to you:

We have a flow chart for annual reviews, that you can find here

An annual review must include certain steps, without which the review hasn’t legally happened:

Consult parents and the young person
Include a meeting with education providers and professionals
Gather updated reports in advance
Send the decision letter within 4 weeks of the meeting

Given that parents/carers should be at the meeting, along with the young person themselves, if you weren’t invited, it’s a pretty clear indication that it hasn’t happened. Then, if you receive a review letter but didn’t attend a meeting, write back immediately asking for:

A copy of the review minutes
The professional reports used
Evidence of your views being considered

If these don’t exist, then again, the review hasn’t happened—and you can challenge it.

LGSCO reference number: 24 013 122

The ABC of the LGSCO: How to complain to the Ombudsman over SEND failures

Disabled Children’s Rights are Under Attack.
We’re fighting, but we can’t do it alone: we need your help more than ever.
We’re volunteer-run, but costs are rising. To help us keep going, please consider a one-off or, if it’s possible, a regular donation.
Read more about being a regular donor here.
We use Zeffy to fundraise, which doesn’t charge us a fee, so 100% of your donation reaches us.

DONATE TO HELP
KEEP SNJ ONLINE!

Don’t miss a thing!

Don’t miss any posts from SNJ – simply add your email address below. You must click the link in the confirmation email you’ll receive to activate your free subscription.

You can also keep up with us by following our

WhatsApp Channel!

Want more? Be an SNJ regular donor!

SNJ is a non-profit and everyone who writes here does so voluntarily. We need your support to help us with costs by donating once or as a regular patron. Find out more here

About
Latest Posts

Tania Tirraoro

Founder, Co-Director at Special Needs Jungle

Founder & co-director of Special Needs Jungle. (She/Her) Autistic parent of two young autistic adults Devoted Grandma. National SEND advisor, journalist & author. Tania also runs a PR, web & social media consultancy, SocialOro Media.
She is a rare disease & chronic pain patient advocate with Ehlers Danlos syndrome.

Latest posts by Tania Tirraoro (see all)