Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not complete her child’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment within statutory timescales and it refused to reimburse the cost of a private Educational Psychologist report. We found the Council at fault. It will apologise to Mrs X, pay her £500 to recognise the avoidable frustration and uncertainty caused by a delay in completing the needs assessment process and reimburse the cost of the Educational Psychologist report.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not:

• Complete her child Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and issue an EHC Plan within statutory timescales.
• Reimburse the cost of a private Educational Psychologist (EP) assessment she sourced during Y’s EHC needs assessment.

2. Mrs X says the Council’s delay in issuing Y’s EHC Plan meant Y’s education and well-being suffered.

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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. 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(i), as amended)
6. 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

7. I spoke to Mrs X about her complaint and considered evidence she provided.
8. I considered the Council’s response to our initial enquiries 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 found

Relevant law and guidance

10. 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: 

• 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).  

11. As part of the assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). This includes information from an Educational Psychologist (EP). 
12. The council must not seek further advice if it already has advice and “the person providing the advice, the local authority and the child’s parent or the young person are all satisfied that it is sufficient for the assessment process”. In making this decision the council and the person providing the advice should ensure the advice remains current. Those consulted have a maximum of six weeks to provide the advice. 
13. Our good practice guidance for councils sets out the sound administrative practice we expect to see in councils’ decision-making.

What happened

14. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
15. Y lives at home with their mother, Mrs X. Y has Special Educational Needs (SEN) and a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD).
16. In June 2024 Mrs X asked the Council to assess Y for an EHC Plan.
17. In August 2024 the Council agreed to undertake an EHC needs assessment for Y.
18. In November 2024 Mrs X complained to the Council stating it had not completed Y’s needs assessment within statutory timescales. The Council apologised to Mrs X and said the delay was due to a shortage of EPs and increased demands for its service.
19. In response, Mrs X told the Council she had booked a private EP assessment for early December 2024 in case it had not sourced its own in time. She provided the Council with a copy of the private EP invoice for £850 and asked it to fund this cost to avoid further delays.
20. The Council refused. In the final complaint response, the Council said while it is open to parents to provide independent EP reports, its deputy EP completes a quality check before agreeing to use such reports. And that it does not fund private reports.
21. The Council decided to issue an EHC Plan and in March 2025 it issued Y’s draft EHC Plan. In producing the Plan, the Council used the private EP report provided by Mrs X.
22. In April 2025 the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan.

Findings

Delay in EHC needs assessment

23. We expect councils to follow statutory timescales set out in the law and the Code. We are likely to find fault where there are significant breaches of those timescales.
24. The Council agreed to undertake an EHC needs assessment for Y in August 2024. It decided to issue an EHC Plan. It should have finalised Y’s EHC Plan within 20 weeks, and by 17 November 2024.
25. The Council did not issue Y’s final EHC Plan until 23 April 2025 which is a delay of five months. EHC need assessments must include advice from an EP. In response to Mrs X’s complaint the Council explained the delay in completing the needs assessment was due to a shortage of EPs and increased demands for its service. The Ombudsman can make findings of fault where there is a failure to provide a service, regardless of the reasons for that service failure. The delay in finalising Y’s EHC Plan was fault. It caused Mrs X avoidable frustration and uncertainty.
26. We have previously made recommendations to the Council to improve its SEN service and we are monitoring this through our case work. The Council has also taken action to recruit additional EPs to alleviate the delays in the assessment process and so I have not made any further service improvement recommendations.

Refusal to reimburse cost of private EP

27. The Council had a duty under the SEND Regulation 6(1) to get input from an EP for Y’s EHC Plan. It did not do so.
28. Because of the Council’s delays, Mrs X obtained her own private EP report. Evidence shows the Council accepted the recommendations made in Mrs X’s private EP report and used this to produce Y’s final EHC Plan. Given this, the Council’s refusal to pay for the cost of the private report was fault. As a result of this fault Mrs X is out of pocket by £850.

Back to top

Agreed action

29. Within one month of this final decision the Council will:
1. Apologise to Mrs X. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Pay Mrs X £500 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused by a five-month delay in issuing Y’s EHC Plan; and
3. Pay Mrs X £850 to reimburse the cost of the private Educational Psychologist report it used in Y’s EHC needs assessment.
30. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

31. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman