Summary: Miss X complained about delays by the Council in her Education, Health and Care needs assessment. She said the delay left her without the support she needed. We found the Council at fault for not completing the assessment within the legal timescales, which caused Miss X uncertainty and frustration. The Council will apologise and make a higher payment to recognise Miss X’s distress.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about delay by the Council in completing her Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment. She said the delay caused her to miss out on support she needed, which caused her college placement to break down.

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 considered evidence provided by Miss X and her mother, Ms Y, and the Council. I also considered relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Miss X, Ms Y 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 needs assessments and plans

8. A child or young person with Special Educational Needs (SEN) 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.
9. 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. 
• 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).  

10. As part of the assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). This includes psychological advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP).

What happened

11. In July 2024 Miss X’s mother, Ms Y, asked the Council to carry out an EHC needs assessment for Miss X.
12. Miss X then started a course in September 2024.
13. Later in September 2024 the Council agreed it would assess Miss X, and it asked an EP to assess her.
14. In November 2024 Miss X’s education placement broke down and she had to leave her course. Miss X and Ms Y say this was due to a lack of support which meant the course provider was not meeting her needs.
15. Ms Y complained to the Council in December 2024 because it had not yet issued a final EHC Plan. The Council should have issued the final EHC Plan by December 2024, to meet its legal deadlines. Ms Y said she wanted Miss X’s case prioritised for an EP assessment.
16. In January 2025 the Council wrote to Ms Y and told her it would not manage to respond to her stage one complaint by the deadline to do so. It said it would therefore consider her complaint at stage two of its complaints process instead.
17. In March 2025 the Council sent Ms Y its stage two complaint response. It upheld her complaint, apologised for the delays and offered her £150 to remedy any injustice this caused to her and Miss X. It explained the delays were because there had been a large increase in the number of EHC needs assessment requests to the Council. It said it was working to recruit more EPs to help meet the demand.
18. The Council told Ms Y it could not compel the EP service to assess Miss X’s case any sooner because this would not be fair. However, it said it would ask the EP service to review her case and decide if it should prioritise Miss X’s case for assessment based on the merits of her situation.
19. The Council said it would contact Miss X and Ms Y to offer support in deciding which college Miss X wanted to go to in September 2025, and help with planning her transition to college. The Council told us it had a meeting with Ms Y and its records show it liaised with the college before Miss Y started there.
20. Ms Y then complained to us. She wanted Miss X to have an EP assessment without delay.
21. In September 2025 the Council told us the EP had still not assessed Miss X, and it could not provide a date for when this might happen. It also told us it was developing an action plan to resolve the backlog of EP assessments.
22. Miss X returned to college to start a new course in September 2025.

Analysis

Complaint handling

23. The Council failed to consider Ms Y’s complaint at stage one, and it delayed responding to her complaint at stage two by 15 working days. This is fault by the Council which caused some frustration for Ms Y and Miss X as it delayed any possibility of a resolution.
24. The Council apologised to Ms Y for not responding at stage one. This is a suitable remedy for any injustice caused to her by the Council failing to respond to her complaint at stage one.
25. I have considered the injustice caused to Ms Y and Miss X by the Council delaying its stage two response by 15 working days. I do not think this caused them any significant injustice because it was a relatively short delay and would likely not have significantly added to their distress. Therefore, I do not think it is proportionate to remedy any distress caused by the delay in the stage two response.

Delays to the EHC Plan

26. Ms Y asked the Council to carry out an EHC needs assessment in July 2024. As explained in paragraph nine, the Council should have made a decision not to issue an EHC plan within 16 weeks, or issued the final EHC Plan within 20 weeks, of this date. This means the decision to not issue an EHC Plan should have been made by November 2024 or, if the Council decides to issue a Plan, it should have done so by December 2024.
27. In September 2025 Miss X had still not had her EP assessment and the Council could not give a date for when this might happen. Until Miss X is seen by an EP, the Council cannot decide whether it will issue a final EHC Plan or write the Plan.
28. There is a reported national shortage of EPs. In response to our enquiries, the Council shared its plan with us to reduce delays in the EHC needs assessments caused by the EP shortages. This includes recruitment of EPs and working with relevant professionals to ensure early identification and support for children and young people with SEN.
29. Although the Council has tried to reduce the delays caused by EP shortages, we would still find fault when a council cannot meet statutory timescales because of circumstances beyond its control. As explained in paragraph three of this decision, we consider this to be service failure.
30. Miss X and Ms Y say the delays prevented Miss X from attending a college she wanted to attend in September 2024, and so she had to join a course at another education placement instead. They say the delays then caused that education placement to break down in November 2024. The final EHC Plan was due in December 2024. When Miss X tried to apply for college and when she had to leave the course she was on, the EHC Plan was not delayed yet and so the Council was not at fault. I cannot therefore say Miss X missed out on a college placement or her education placement broke down in 2024 because of any fault by the Council.
31. However, the delays caused other injustice to Miss X and Ms Y. It caused them uncertainty, compounded by Miss X being at a key stage in her education. This meant she did not know what college she would go to in September 2025, or what support she would receive once she was there.
32. I accept the Council tried to reduce the impact of the delays on Miss X by liaising with the college, and offering it advice and support, before she was due to start in September 2025.
33. The Council told us the average delay for an EHC needs assessment for its applicants is around 25 weeks. In Miss X’s case, the delay is now 41 weeks. The Council has not been able to explain to us why Miss X is experiencing a longer delay than the average applicant. However, the specific reasons for delays in Miss X’s case would not affect my overall finding the delay has caused Miss X and Ms Y uncertainty and frustration.
34. Ms Y told us her main wish is for Miss X to have her EP assessment soon. We cannot make the Council give priority to Miss X’s case as this would not be fair to others who are also waiting. The Council agreed to discuss Miss X’s case to see if it should prioritise her case on the circumstances. This is a decision for the Council to take, and we cannot tell it how to manage its resources.

Service improvements

35. Where we find fault by a council, we can make recommendations to improve how the council delivers its services to prevent the same issue happening to others.
36. As explained above, the Council has shared with us its plan to reduce the delays to the EHC Plan process caused by EP shortages. I am satisfied the Council’s proposed actions are appropriate to address the issue and I have therefore not made any service improvement recommendations on this point. We will monitor the effectiveness of the Council’s actions through our casework.

Back to top

Action

37. The Council will take the following actions to remedy any injustice:
1. Within four weeks of our final decision, apologise to Miss X and Ms Y for the injustice caused to them by the failings identified during this investigation. This apology should be in accordance with our guidance for making an effective apology.
2. Within four weeks of deciding not to issue or sending her the final EHC Plan, whichever is applicable, pay Ms Y, on behalf of Miss X, £100 per month (less the £150 the Council has already paid to her):

• from November 2024 (week 16 of the EHC process) until the point it issues its decision letter to refuse to issue an EHC Plan; or,
• from December 2024 (week 20 of the EHC process) until the final EHC Plan is issued.
• The Council will pay Ms Y for any ongoing delay after our final decision, up to maximum of six months from the date of our final decision. If the Council has still not completed its assessment by then, Ms Y and Miss X can return to the Ombudsman with a new complaint.

38. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman