The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has ordered Croydon Council to apologise to a family after a series of administrative failings in handling a child's Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). The watchdog found that the council refused to hold a dispute resolution meeting it had agreed to during mediation and delayed the child's annual EHCP review by seven months.
Mediation agreement broken
The dispute began after Croydon Council issued a final amended EHCP for a child referred to as Z in May 2024. The family, referred to as Mr and Mr Y, requested a mediation meeting to discuss concerns about gaps in Z's education and progress in English, which they attributed to illness and attendance issues over several years.
A mediation meeting took place in July 2024, resulting in a signed agreement between the parents and the council. As part of the agreement, the council committed to discussing the child's school report and arranging a dispute resolution meeting to consider potential amendments to the EHCP. However, the council later told the family it did “not deem this course of action to be suitable” and had “no intention of pursuing it further”, arguing the process “may not lead to a productive or satisfactory outcome for all parties involved”.
Ombudsman findings
The Ombudsman found that the council had failed to comply with Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations by not honouring the signed mediation agreement. According to the Ombudsman, the council's actions caused the family avoidable frustration, as the issues identified during mediation remained unresolved.
The investigation also found that Croydon Council delayed Z's statutory annual EHCP review. The review was due in December 2024, but the council did not issue a final amended EHCP until late October 2025, instead of by March 2025. This meant the family faced around seven months of unnecessary uncertainty over the child's educational provision.
Council's response
Croydon Council argued that the delay was partly due to the parents declining to comment on the existing EHCP before the review. However, the Ombudsman rejected this explanation, noting there is no legal requirement for parents to submit comments before an annual review can take place. The father had initially refused to take part in the annual review until the earlier dispute was resolved.
The council was also criticised for its handling of the family's complaint. After informing the family it would not hold the agreed meeting, the council sent an unclear letter. When the parents later asked for their complaint to be escalated, the council refused, citing a missed three-month deadline. The Ombudsman found this was also a fault, as earlier correspondence had not clearly explained the council's position, unfairly denying the family access to the second stage of the complaints process.
Apology and future learning
The council has since agreed to apologise to the family for the frustration, uncertainty, confusion and lost opportunity caused by its actions. A Croydon Council spokesperson said: “We are committed to making sure children with special educational needs get the education, opportunities and support they need. We accepted the Ombudsman’s recommendations and have apologised to the child’s parents for the delays. We did not arrange a dispute resolution meeting because the parents did not suggest any further changes to their child’s EHCP. However, we accept that the meeting should have taken place. This was an unusual case because of these circumstances, and the Ombudsman agreed that these significant factors contributed to what happened. The Ombudsman is satisfied with our apology and has now closed the case. We have reflected on its findings and will ensure that the learning from this case informs how similar matters are handled in future.”
