Summary: We found fault by the Council on Miss Y’s complaint about the Council failing to process her request for an Education, Health and Care plan within statutory timescales when it decided to issue it. It also failed to keep her regularly updated, delayed responding to her complaint, and failed to act on information from the school. The Council agreed to send a written apology, pay £7,600 for lost educational provision, review why it failed to issue the plan within statutory timescales, and act to ensure the failures are not repeated in future by setting out an Action Plan. It will remind relevant officers of the need to give regular updates and information. It will also review why it failed to act on information from the school and why it did not deal with her complaint within the timescales of its own complaints procedure.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains about the Council failing to:
1. process her request for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan for her son within statutory timescales;
2. keep her updated about progress on her request; and
3. respond to her formal complaint within its own complaint procedure timescales.
2. As a result, her son lost educational provision, has suffered socially, all of which has caused them both a great deal of stress, anxiety, and pressure, both emotionally and financially.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y, the Council’s response to my enquiries, as well as relevant law, policy, and guidance. I sent a copy of my draft decision to Miss Y and the Council. I considered their responses.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

7. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an 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 First-tier Tribunal or a council can do this. 
8. Statutory guidance, ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’) sets out the process for carrying out EHC needs assessments and producing EHC plans. The guidance is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014 (the Regulations) which say 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. 
• If the council decides not to conduct an EHC needs assessment it must give the child’s parent, or the young person, information about their right to appeal to the Tribunal.
• 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 issue an EHC plan, the whole process from the point when an assessment was requested, until the final EHC plan was issued, must take no more than 20 weeks (unless certain exceptional circumstances apply).

9. The Code states there are ‘exceptional circumstances’ where it may not be reasonable to expect councils to comply with the 20 week time limit. This would include: appointments missed by the child; the child is absent from the area for a period of at least 4 weeks; exceptional personal circumstances affecting the child or parents; the closure of the educational institution for at least four weeks which may delay the submission of information from the school.

What happened

10. Miss Y’s seven year old son, Z, was in Year 1 at school. He has complex needs and was only accessing school for 7.5 hours a week. He did not have an EHC plan but had support from the school.
11. Miss Y wanted Z to have an EHC plan so applied for an EHC needs assessment on 4 April 2024. She told the Council Z received very little education over the last year and a half and could not attend school full time and struggled with even a part time timetable. She did not think mainstream school was right for him.
12. The following is a summary of key events:

2024:

• 4 April: the Council received Miss Y’s request for an EHC needs assessment.
• 1 May: the Council confirmed it would carry out an EHC needs assessment of Z.
• 6 June: the educational psychologist assessment was sent to the Council. This said he attended school part time for 2 hours a day, accessing a play-based nurture base. It said he needed more bespoke provision with access to smaller classes with a higher staff to child ratio, and for staff to have the skills to support his needs. He needed a bespoke curriculum. His attendance at school was around 48% on a part time timetable.
• 19 June: the Council decided it would issue an EHC plan and told Miss Y the following day.
• August: initial consultations started with the current school, the catchment school, and three other schools. All raised objections although one school was still to respond.

2025:

• February: the specialist school said it had no space this year for Z but it might the following year. Z’s current school sent a costed Action Plan to the Council which the Council failed to act on.
• March: an officer contacted Miss Y. The specialist school was re-consulted for a place in September.
• April: the specialist school said they had not received the re-consultation which was sent again.
• A draft EHC plan was issued but did not name a school. I have not been told when the draft was issued.
• May: the specialist school said it could not offer a place. An officer spoke to Miss Y about the next step.
• 5 August: the final EHC plan was issued. Miss Y sent the Council her complaint about its actions. In its stage 1 response to it, the Council accepted the 20-week statutory deadline was 21 August 2024 which had passed without it issuing the final EHC plan.

She asked for the complaint to go to the next stage of the complaints process.

• September: Miss Y appealed sections B, F, and I, of the EHC plan. She also asked for her complaint to go to the next stage of the Council’s complaints procedure.
• 17 December: The Council sent its stage 2 response to her complaint. It apologised for the delay responding to her request for it to go to stage 2. It also agreed it was unacceptable for her not to have received any contact from her case worker since August. It consulted Z’s current school and his catchment school, but both said they could not meet his needs.

It consulted with her preferred school and there was a delay receiving its response. This school now confirmed it would not be taking on new pupils as first thought. This school would not have been suitable anyway because of Z’s needs. It would consult with another two schools to see if they could meet his needs.

The Council apologised for not giving her any of this information before and accepted she was left with no contact from the SEND team for four months, which was unacceptable. It accepted he needed specialist provision but, there were no special schools with places available that year. It needed to look and consider what additional support was needed and could be put into place.

13. In response to our enquiries, the Council explained:

• the statutory timescales were not met. This was because it could not identify a specialist placement for Z.
• it was under pressure with the increased number of EHC plans but recognised procedures and processes need reviewing. The management team meet regularly to review complaints received. The Council has undergone a significant education restructure to improve the quality of service and oversight of vulnerable children and young people. It has also restructured its commissioning team to include Special Educational Needs and Disability officers. It has implemented a SEND Action Plan and Self-Evaluation Framework.
• It has no record of being contacted by Z’s school that he had been absent from school for 15 days. The school sent a costed Action Plan in February 2025, but this was not actioned at the time. The school does have a budget as Z is on the SEN register. The educational psychologist report stated he was on a part-time timetable of two hours a day accessing their play-based nurture base.

14. The Council’s complaints procedure consists of:

• Stage 1: It aims to respond to a complaint within 10 working days of issuing the acknowledgement but where issues are more complex, aims to respond within 20 working days; and
• Stage 2: This will be independently considered. It gives no timescale within which it will be done.

My findings

15. I found the following on this complaint:
1. The timescale for an EHC needs assessment, which includes the issuing of a final EHC plan, is a maximum of 20 weeks. This started the date the Council received the request for an EHC needs assessment. As the request was received on 4 April 2024, the Council had until 22 August to issue the final EHC plan.
2. The Council received the EHC needs assessment request on 4 April 2024 so had six weeks (16 May) to tell Miss Y of its decision about whether to carry one out or not. The Council met this deadline as it told her it would carry out an assessment on 1 May. I found no fault on this part of the complaint.
3. The Council failed to issue the final EHC plan until 5 August 2025. This was about 51 weeks late. This delay was fault. I am satisfied it caused Miss Y an injustice as she lost the opportunity to have it issued within the statutory time limits. She also lost the opportunity to appeal the final EHC plan sooner. In reaching this view, I note she lodged an appeal when the final EHC plan was issued.
4. I am also satisfied there was poor communication between the Council and Miss Y which it accepted was the case in its stage 2 response. The failure to keep her updated and regularly communicate with her amounts to fault. This caused her injustice as she had the distress of not knowing what action, if any, was being taken. It caused frustration and uncertainty. It also undermined her trust in the Council.
5. The Council also failed to act on the school’s costed Action Plan. This was fault and caused her injustice. This was a lost opportunity for Z.
6. The complaints procedure timescales were not followed as the Council had to apologise for failing to take prompt action on her stage 2 request, for example. The stage 1 response should have been sent to her by 19 August but was not sent until 27 August. Although the Council’s procedure does not give timescales within which it will respond under stage 2 of its complaints procedure, there was no evidence it acknowledged her stage 2 request when it was made. It took 3 months for it to send her its response. A reasonable period might have been about a month. This was fault. I am satisfied this caused Miss Y an injustice as she lost the opportunity to have it dealt with sooner. She again experienced frustration and uncertainty about what, if anything, was happening with her request.

Back to top

Action

16. I considered our guidance on remedies. I also took account of Z receiving two hours a day schooling out of a typical school day of six hours, the delay to Miss Y being able to appeal the final EHC plan, and Z’s identified needs. I have also considered the steps the Council said it has already taken to deal with growing demand for EHC plans.
17. The Council agreed to take the following action within four weeks of the final decision on this complaint:
1. Send Miss Y a written apology for the injustice caused by its failure to: issue the final EHC plan within the statutory guidelines; act on the school’s fully costed Action Plan; communicate with her fully and provide her with information; follow the process set out under its own complaint procedure.
2. Pay £7,600 (4 terms x £1,900 from August 2024) to Miss Y for the lost educational provision.
3. Review why it failed to issue the final EHC plan within the statutory timescale and act to ensure the reason for the delay cannot be repeated on future cases.
4. Provide an Action Plan setting out the steps it will take to ensure statutory timescales are met on future cases.
5. Remind relevant officers of the need to provide parents with regular updates and information on the progress of their request for an EHC plan.
6. Review why there was a failure to act on the school’s costed Action Plan and take steps to ensure this cannot be repeated on future cases.
7. Review why there was a failure to deal with her complaint according to its complaints procedure and ensure these failures cannot be repeated on future cases.
18. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

19. I found the following on Miss Y’s complaint against the Council:

• Complaint a): fault causing injustice;
• Complaint b): fault causing injustice; and
• Complaint c): fault causing injustice.

20. The agreed action remedies the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman