Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child Y's EHC Plan, failed to ensure he received suitable education and the special educational provision in his EHC Plan, delayed implementing the agreed outcome of mediation and communicated poorly. There was fault causing injustice, including delayed appeal rights, uncertainty and loss of opportunity for Y, and avoidable distress and time and trouble for Mrs X. The Council agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child Y’s EHC Plan, failed to ensure he received suitable education and the special educational provision specified in his EHC Plan, delayed implementing the agreed outcome of mediation and communicated poorly throughout the process.
2. Mrs X said the Council's actions meant Y missed out on appropriate educational provision, fell behind academically and remained without the support he needed for longer than necessary. She said this caused uncertainty and distress to both Y and the family, and meant she spent significant time and trouble pursuing the Council for updates and seeking appropriate support.

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 significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mrs X 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 have and have not looked at

10. I have investigated the Council's actions from June 2024, when Mrs X requested an EHC needs assessment, to September 2025, when the Council implemented the revised funding agreed following mediation. Mrs X complained to us in October 2025, so part of this period falls outside the usual 12-month period for making a complaint. I have exercised discretion to investigate from June 2024 because the delay completing the EHC Plan was an ongoing matter which continued until March 2025. Considering the whole period allows me to properly assess the extent and impact of that delay. I have referred to events before June 2024 only where necessary to provide relevant background.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

EHC Plan 

11. 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. 
12. 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 the following: 

• Where the council receives a request for an EHC needs assessment it must decide whether to agree to the assessment and send its decision to the parent of the child or the young person within six weeks. 
• The process of assessing needs and developing EHC Plans “must be carried out in a timely manner”. Steps must be completed as soon as practicable. 
• If the council goes on to carry out an assessment, it must decide whether to issue an EHC Plan or refuse to issue a Plan within 16 weeks.
• 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);  

Mediation

13. Councils must arrange for a child’s parents or the young person to receive information about mediation as an informal way to resolve disputes about decisions that can be appealed to the Tribunal. Parents need to consider mediation and get a ‘mediation certificate’ before they can appeal to the Tribunal.

Section 19 duty

14. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that the council 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.

2.4.2 Establishing a section 19 duty

15. If a council discovers a child is absent from school for an extended period, it should consider the reasons for this, and take account of evidence from relevant parties (such as the child’s school, parents, and medical professionals). It must then decide whether it has a duty to make alternative educational provision.
16. If a council wants to see medical or other evidence, it should ask for it at the earliest opportunity. The council should account for any challenges a parent might have in obtaining evidence, and review its position based on any new evidence it receives.
17. Councils should consider any attempts the school is making to support the child. This might involve sending work home for the child to complete, arranging disability related support, placing the child on a reduced timetable, or providing online education as a short-term measure. If there is a clear, effective, and time-bound plan for reintegration then there may be no immediate role for the council in providing alternative education.

Part-time timetables

18. The DfE guidance (Working together to improve school attendance) states all pupils of compulsory school age are entitled to a full-time education. In very exceptional circumstances there may be a need for a temporary part-time timetable to meet a pupil’s individual needs. For example, where a medical condition prevents a pupil from attending full-time education and a part-time timetable is considered as part of a re-integration package. A part-time timetable must not be treated as a long-term solution. 

What happened

19. Y is a child with special educational needs. He experienced difficulties attending school because of his needs during the period investigated. His attendance reduced over time and the school placed him on a reduced timetable.
20. The school regularly reviewed Y's attendance and support arrangements. It adopted a phased reintegration approach and involved a range of professionals, including educational psychology, an inclusion support service, Access to Education, mentoring services and later private tutors.
21. Mrs X remained concerned that Y was not receiving a suitable education, despite the arrangements. She said the reduced timetable continued for too long, Y received very limited education and the Council failed to intervene sooner.
22. Mrs X asked the Council to carry out an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in June 2024. The Council agreed to assess Y's needs in August 2024.
23. The Council obtained professional advice as part of the assessment and issued a draft EHC Plan in November 2024.
24. Mrs X commented on the draft EHC Plan and requested amendments. Mrs X repeatedly contacted the Council for updates during this period and expressed concern about the delay in finalising the EHC Plan and the impact this was having on Y's education. The Council issued the final EHC Plan in early March 2025.
25. Mrs X remained concerned that the provision and funding were insufficient to secure the support set out in the Plan. She said Y continued to receive only limited tuition and support.
26. The Council reviewed the funding arrangements but maintained that the provision was appropriate. Mrs X remained dissatisfied and requested mediation.
27. The Council arranged an Early Annual Review for June 2025 to consider Y's provision. Mrs X cancelled the review shortly before it was due to take place following advice connected with the forthcoming mediation.
28. Mediation took place in June 2025. The Council agreed during mediation to amend the EHC Plan and increase the funding available to deliver Y's provision.
29. The Council did not immediately implement the outcome of mediation. Mrs X continued to contact the Council because the amended EHC Plan was not issued and the increased funding had not been put in place.
30. The Council issued the amended EHC Plan in August 2025. It implemented the revised funding arrangements in September 2025.
31. Y received varying levels of educational support throughout the period investigated, including mentoring, therapeutic support, tuition and input from specialist services. The Council says it worked with the school and other professionals to review Y's needs and support his education.
32. Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure Y received suitable education, delayed completing the EHC Plan process, delayed implementing the outcome of mediation, failed to secure the provision specified in the EHC Plan and handled her complaints poorly.
33. The Council accepted there were delays completing the EHC Plan process, delays implementing the agreed amendments following mediation and shortcomings in its communication with Mrs X. It apologised for those failings. But it did not accept it failed to meet its duties regarding Y's education.

Analysis and findings

Delay completing the EHC Plan

34. Councils should normally issue a final EHC Plan within 20 weeks of a request for an EHC needs assessment.
35. The Council took around 38 weeks to issue Y's final EHC Plan, approximately 18 weeks longer than the statutory timescale. The Council accepted this delay and apologised. Some professional advice was received later than originally expected and this contributed to the overall timescale. However, this does not account for the extent of the delay in issuing the final EHC Plan. There was no evidence exceptional circumstances applied to justify departing from the statutory timescales.
36. The delay meant Y remained without a final statutory plan for significantly longer than he should have. It also delayed Mrs X's right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. This was fault.

Delay implementing the mediation agreement

37. The Council should have implemented the agreed amendments without unnecessary delay once agreement had been reached through mediation.
38. The Council took around two months to issue the amended EHC Plan and around three months to implement the agreed increase in funding. The Council accepted these delays and apologised.
39. The Council agreed to amend Y's EHC Plan and increase the funding available for his provision by the time mediation took place. Regardless of whether the earlier arrangements had been adequate, the Council should then have implemented the agreed outcome without unnecessary delay. Its failure to do so delayed Y's access to the additional provision subsequently agreed through mediation. This was fault.

Suitable education under section 19 of the Education Act 1996

40. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 places a duty on councils to arrange suitable education for children who cannot attend school because of illness, exclusion or otherwise.
41. The Council knew Y was attending school on a significantly reduced timetable. It received information about the part-time timetable through the school's termly returns and understood the school was working with Mrs X to support Y's reintegration. The Council was entitled to initially allow the school an opportunity to implement and review this approach.
42. However, Y's reduced attendance continued for a prolonged period. Mrs X expressly raised concerns with the Council on 14 April 2025 about its duties under section 19 and Y's limited access to education. The Council should have considered by this point whether the existing arrangements remained suitable and whether its duty to arrange alternative education under section 19 had arisen.
43. During this investigation, the Council said it did not consider Y under section 19 because it expected the school to continue working with him and no further referral had been made for alternative provision. This was not sufficient. The section 19 duty rests with the Council and it should have reached an evidenced decision about whether the duty applied based on Y's circumstances.
44. It is not possible to say what decision the Council would have reached had it properly considered its section 19 duty, or precisely what alternative provision it would have arranged. However, its failure to properly consider the duty by April 2025 caused uncertainty about whether Y should have received additional alternative education. This was fault.

Communication

45. Mrs X repeatedly contacted the Council requesting updates about the EHC Plan, mediation and Y’s educational provision. The Council accepted there were delays responding to Mrs X and acknowledged its communication fell below the standard she was entitled to expect.
46. The Council should have kept Mrs X informed about the progress of Y's case and explained any unavoidable delays. Mrs X was left having to repeatedly chase the Council for updates during key stages of the EHC Plan process and following mediation. The Council's poor communication caused Mrs X avoidable frustration, uncertainty and time and trouble. This was fault.

Injustice

47. The Council's failure to properly consider its section 19 duty means it is not possible to know whether Y would have received additional alternative education from April 2025. This uncertainty is an injustice to Y. The subsequent delay implementing the mediation agreement also meant Y lost the opportunity to benefit sooner from the additional provision subsequently agreed through mediation.
48. The delay in issuing the final EHC Plan also delayed Mrs X's right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal and prolonged uncertainty about Y's educational provision.
49. The Council's poor communication meant Mrs X had to spend avoidable time and trouble repeatedly contacting the Council for updates and pursuing her concerns. This also caused her avoidable frustration and distress during an already difficult period.

Back to top

Action

50. Within one month of our final decision, the council agreed to:
• Apologise to Mrs X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay £900 to Mrs X to recognise Y's loss of opportunity and uncertainty about whether he would have received additional educational provision sooner but for the faults identified.
• Pay £400 to Mrs X for the distress, uncertainty and avoidable time and trouble caused by the Council's delays and poor communication.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman