Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health, and Care needs assessment for her child within statutory timeframes. We found the Council at fault for significant delays, causing significant distress, frustration and uncertainty for the family. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council's failure to complete an Education, Health and Care (“EHC”) needs assessment for her child within statutory timeframes. She says this has caused her significant frustration and distress as the delay has impacted on her child who is struggling at school and needs appropriate support.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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)
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 discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views.
7. I considered the information the Council provided in respect of this complaint.
8. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and administrative background

Education, Health and Care Plans (EHC Plans)

9. 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.
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 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 EHC needs assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND 2014 Regulations, Regulation 6(1)). This includes advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP). Those consulted have six weeks to provide the advice.
12. Parents have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. This is only engaged once a decision not to assess, issue or amend a plan has been made and sent to the parent or a final EHC plan has been issued.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

13. In early July 2024, the Council received Miss X’s EHC needs assessment request for her child (“Y”). In December 2024, Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council as it had delayed with the process and was in breach of statutory timeframes for the assessment.
14. At the start of January 2025, the Council responded at Stage One. It recognised the delays but the shortage of Educational Psychologists (“EPs”) across the UK impacted upon its ability to meet legal timeframes. It apologised and said it was not able to issue a draft EHC Plan as it was waiting for an EP to be allocated.
15. Miss X was dissatisfied with the response and asked for a likely timeframe. The Council said it could not answer this and it could not add any further to her complaint. The Council said it was continuing to work on minimising EP delays where it could. It did not refer her to us.
16. In February 2025, Miss X complained to us. She added concerns about poor communication, and she had found a private EP and passed over their details to the Council to try and progress the matter.
17. In April 2025, Miss X said they had the EP assessment.
18. In July 2025, Miss X said to me the Council has now issued a final EHC Plan for Y. Miss X said she came to us with her complaint after speaking to an independent support service.
19. In response to enquiries on other complaints on similar matters, the Council has a long-term action plan in place to reduce the delays in getting EP advice. It said its practice has changed to address overdue EHC Plans with the creation of a new Recovery Team.

Analysis

20. The Council received the request for the EHC needs assessment in early July 2024. If a council decides to issue an EHC Plan, it should do this within 20 weeks of a request. In this case, it should have done this by late November 2024. The Council did not issue a final EHC Plan until early July 2025. This is a significant delay of nearly eight months.
21. I acknowledge the national shortage of EPs caused the delay, however statutory guidance is clear regarding timeframes and the Council failed to meet this. This is fault in the form of service failure. This caused significant frustration and distress for Miss X as she had to wait notably longer than necessary to receive a final EHC Plan for Y’s needs, with a lack of updates. It delayed her statutory right of appeal should she disagree with it. There is also uncertainty for Miss X of whether provision or a suitable placement could have been in place sooner for Y if the Council had met timeframes.
22. The Council has a suitable plan in place to take steps to increase EP capacity across the service to support EHC needs assessments. It is an ongoing piece of work which we will continue to monitor. The Council is also subject to oversight from the Department of Education around improvements within its special educational needs service. Therefore, I have not considered it necessary to make further service improvement recommendations.
23. When the Council said it could not progress Miss X’s complaint further, it did not signpost her to us. This is fault. But she received advice from a local service and complained to us promptly, which mitigates the injustice. I note the Council has consistently directed other complainants to us in similar recent cases. I consider this a one off in Miss X’s case and does not warrant further action on this point.

Back to top

Action

24. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise in writing to Miss X for the frustration, distress and uncertainty caused by the Council’s delays in issuing a final EHC Plan for Y; and
• Pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £800 to recognise the injustice. This is calculated at £100 per month from the statutory deadline of November 2024, which is when the Council should have issued a final EHC Plan. This is in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice, and I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman