Summary: Mr B complained the Council failed to issue an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for his daughter, who I will refer to as C, within statutory timescales and failed to arrange education for her after she was permanently excluded from school. There was fault by the Council. The Council did not issue C’s final EHC Plan within statutory timescales. It also delayed arranging alternative education provision for C. Because of the fault, Mr B suffered uncertainty and a frustrated right of appeal. C also missed out on education provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr B and C, and make symbolic payments.

The complaint

1. Mr B complains the Council failed to issue an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for his daughter, who I will refer to as C, within statutory timescales and failed to arrange education for her after she was excluded from school in October 2024. He says if the Council had issued the EHC Plan when it should have, C may not have been excluded.
2. As a result, Mr B says C has had little social interaction and she has fallen behind her peers in education. He says it has also caused him frustration and anxiety. Mr B would like C to have a suitable education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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.
7. 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(1), as amended)
8. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated matters in this case from mid-November 2023, when the Council agreed to carry out an EHC needs assessment for C, to mid-July 2025 when the Council issued the final EHC Plan for C. I reference matters outside of these dates for context.
10. Mr B brought his complaint to us in June 2025, meaning events that took place before June 2024 have been raised late. However, I have exercised discretion to consider matters from mid-November 2023, as it seems Mr B had been attempting to resolve matters with the Council first. It would also be sensible to investigate from this point, as it marks the start of the delays in the EHC process.
11. Mr B had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal in July 2025 when the Council issued a final EHC Plan for C. As such, I have not investigated matters after this point for the reason outlined in paragraph 5.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I read Mr B’s complaint and spoke to him about it on the phone.
13. I considered evidence provided by Mr B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Mr B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

EHC Plan 

15. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 

Timescales and process for EHC assessments

16. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’) sets out the process for carrying out EHC assessments and producing EHC Plans. The guidance is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014. It says if the council goes on to issue an EHC Plan, the whole process from the point when an assessment is requested until the final EHC Plan is issued must take no more than 20 weeks (unless certain specific circumstances apply).

Section 19 duty

17. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that councils must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child. The alternative educational provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.

Back to top

What happened

18. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.

EHC assessment process

19. Mr B requested an EHC needs assessment for C in May 2023. The Council initially refused to assess C but later reversed its decision and agreed to assess in mid-November 2023. The Council issued a draft EHC Plan for C in January 2025. It issued the final EHC Plan in mid-July 2025.
20. The Council says there was a delay between agreeing to assess and issuing the draft EHC Plan, due to waiting for an outstanding educational psychologist (EP) report and increased demand in its SEND service. It says the delay between the draft EHC Plan and issuing of the final EHC Plan was due to the Council having further discussions with the school that was Mr B’s parental preference. The Council then issued additional consultations to other schools in June 2025 in accordance with C’s preference to attend a mainstream school.

Section 19 duty

21. C was permanently excluded from school in late October 2024. The Council says it arranged for alternative provision to begin in early November 2024. In January 2025, the setting where this provision was delivered informed the Council C was too anxious to attend. Around this time, the Council also offered online tuition to C while a school placement was being sought, but this was declined.
22. In May 2025, the Council made a referral to an alternative provision provider with the aim of supporting C with the remainder of year 10 and year 11. However, C did not engage with this provision.
23. In June 2025, the Council met with a different provider and arranged tuition for C. The tuition began in early July 2025, and the Council says C engaged well with the tutor.

Back to top

Analysis

EHC assessment process

24. The Council reversed its initial decision and agreed to assess C on 16 November 2023. This re-started the process at week six, so the Council had a remaining 14 weeks to finish the process, as it had decided to issue an EHC Plan. So, the Council should have issued the final EHC Plan no later than 22 February 2024. It did not do this. The Council issued the final EHC Plan on 18 July 2025. This delay was fault.
25. The wait for the final EHC Plan delayed Mr B’s right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal until the Council issued the final EHC Plan in July 2025. We take the view that councils must abide by the statutory and legislative requirements under the SEN legislation and guidance. The Council’s failure to meet the required timescales here was fault and has caused Mr B distress and frustration. Had the Council issued C’s EHC Plan in line with statutory timescales, she would have had the Plan in place from February 2024. Due to the delays, C lost the opportunity to receive this provision, and it caused uncertainty to Mr B about the provision C would receive.
26. The Council has acknowledged the delays in the EHC assessment process and has offered Mr B £200 to remedy the injustice caused by this. In response to my enquiries, it also offered a further £200, so, £400 for this in total. This is in line with our guidance and it is appropriate to acknowledge the injustice caused by this fault.
27. The Council says it has taken action to improve timeliness in its SEND service, including additional investments into its Statutory Assessment team and EP service, and enhanced monitoring and oversight through a data forecasting system to ensure advice for assessments is received in a timely manner. The Council says as a result, almost all EHC needs assessments are currently being completed within expected timescales. I have therefore not made any service improvement recommendations. I also have not recommended the Council apologise for the EHC needs assessment delays, as it has already done so in its complaint response which is appropriate.

Section 19 duty

28. In cases where a child is permanently excluded from a school, the law says provision must be arranged for the child from the sixth school day after the exclusion. The Council did this. C was permanently excluded on 22 October 2024, and the Council arranged for provision to begin on 4 November 2024. This was the fourth school day, as there was a half-term in between. So, the Council was not at fault here, as it arranged alternative provision before the sixth school day of exclusion.
29. The setting where this alternative provision was delivered, informed the Council in January 2025 C was too anxious to attend. At this point, the Council should have considered its section 19 duty and offered different provision, which I consider it did. It offered C online tuition while it looked for a school placement, however C did not engage with this. The Council later made a referral to a different provider, in May 2025. But the Council should have considered its section 19 duty sooner and offered alternative options when it was aware C was not engaging with this in January 2025, not four months later. C also did not engage with this alternative provider, and the later tuition which the Council says C engaged well with, did not begin until early July 2025. The delays in the Council considering and arranging alternative provision for C was fault.
30. The fault caused an injustice to C. C missed education provision due to Council fault, from mid-January 2025, when the Council became aware C would not be accessing the online tuition it had offered, until July 2025, when tuition was in place for C which the Council says she engaged well with. I have made a recommendation below to reflect this.
31. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
32. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.
33. When a young person has missed education because of fault by a council, we may recommend the council make a symbolic payment to acknowledge the education they have missed and help them to catch up. We usually recommend a payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. In determining an appropriate level we will take account of factors such as:
• The severity of the young person’s SEND as set out in the EHC Plan;
• Any educational provision that was made during the period;
• Whether additional provision now can remedy some or all of that loss; and
• Whether the period affected was a significant one in a young person’s school career, for example the first year of compulsory education, the transfer to secondary school or the period preparing for public exams.
34. The Council has acknowledged the missed education and has offered Mr B £800 to remedy the injustice caused by this. In response to my enquiries, it also offered a further £400, so, £1,200 for this in total. However, given C’s age, the stage of education (due to prepare for exams), and the level of education and provision that was provided, a payment of £2,000 per term of missed provision would be appropriate. I have made a recommendation below outlining the total amount the Council should pay to remedy the education provision C missed.
35. I have not made any service improvement recommendations. This is because there does not appear to be any current themes within our casework which highlight a systemic issue within the Council in relation to the fault identified in paragraph 29. We do however monitor emerging themes and issues in the complaints that are brought to us and will make service improvement recommendations where appropriate, which we carefully monitor to help drive improvement to council services.

Back to top

Action

36. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr B and C by the fault I have identified, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr B and C for its delays in considering and arranging suitable alternative provision for C, which meant C missed education provision. This apology should be in accordance with our guidance Making an effective apology.
• If it has not already done so, pay Mr B the £400 it has offered to acknowledge the injustice caused by the delays in the EHC needs assessment process.
• Pay Mr B £3,535 to acknowledge the education provision C missed caused by the Council’s delays in considering and arranging alternative provision for C. This has been calculated at £2,000 per term of missed education, as outlined in paragraph 34, for just under two terms, from mid-January 2025 to early July 2025.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I uphold Mr B’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman