Summary: Mrs X complained the Council delayed completing her child’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment and communicated poorly. We find the Council at fault for both delays and a short period of poor communication causing uncertainty and distress for the family. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not complete her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment or issue an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales. She also complained about poor communication from the Council.
2. Mrs X further complained the Council failed to identify a suitable alternative education placement for Y.
3. Mrs X says the delay in issuing the EHC Plan contributed to Y’s permanent exclusion and has caused uncertainty and distress for the whole family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

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. 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)
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision.
8. Mrs X can appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the education placement (or absence of one) named in Y’s final EHC Plan. I consider it reasonable for her to have done so. I have therefore not investigated this part of her complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. 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

Timescales and process for EHC needs assessment 

11. 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).

Education, Health and Care Plan

12. 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 tribunal or the council can do this. 

What happened

13. In May 2024, Mrs X asked the Council to carry out an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for her child, Y.
14. In July, within statutory timescales, the Council agreed to carry out the assessment.
15. In December, the Council issued a draft EHC Plan.
16. Later that month, Mrs X complained about the delay completing the EHC needs assessment, poor communication, and raised issues with the draft EHC Plan.
17. In January 2025, the Council responded. It apologised for the poor communication she received in September 2024, confirmed it had reminded staff about expectations on communication and timescales, allocated a new caseworker, and issued an updated draft EHC Plan.
18. Mrs X was dissatisfied, as the Council had not addressed the delay in issuing the final EHC Plan, and escalated her complaint.
19. Later that month, the Council issued its final EHC Plan naming Y’s current school (school A).
20. In February, the Council issued its final complaint response. It accepted there had been a 15-week delay in completing the EHC needs assessment and issuing the final EHC Plan, explaining this was due to the national shortage of Educational Psychologists (EPs). The Council also acknowledged that Y had since been permanently excluded from school A and was now attending school B. It said it would seek updated EP advice and issue a final amended EHC Plan as soon as possible.
21. In March, Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
22. In May, the Council issued a final amended EHC Plan, which did not name an education placement.

My findings

EHC needs assessment

23. The Council accepts it did not complete Y’s EHC needs assessment or issue the final EHC Plan within the statutory timescales.
24. Y’s EHC Plan should have been issued within 20 weeks of Mrs X’s request for an assessment in May 2024, so in October. However, it was issued in January 2025, a delay of three months. This delay was fault. While the Council explained the delay was due to a shortage of EPs, this did not remove its duty to comply with the statutory timescales.
25. Mrs X believes the delay contributed to Y’s permanent exclusion from school A. I cannot conclude, even on the balance of probabilities, that this was the case. However, the delay caused avoidable distress and uncertainty for the family.

Communication

26. The Council has acknowledged its poor communication, apologised, and reminded staff about expectations. The Council’s poor communication was fault and caused avoidable distress and uncertainty. However, the Council has also provided evidence that, since Mrs X’s original complaint in December 2024, it has maintained prompt communication with her. I have considered whether the remedy is in line with the expectations set out in our Guidance on Remedies. In my view, having considered the events and time period, I consider the remedy appropriate and do not recommend further action on this point.

Back to top

Action

27. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to: 
• apologise to Mrs X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and
• pay Mrs X £300 to recognise the uncertainty, avoidable distress and frustration caused by the delay.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman