Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales. We find the Council at fault for delay, which caused uncertainty and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X. It should also review its action plan to ensure Education, Health and Care Plan writing is conducted in line with the timescales set out in statutory guidance.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council significantly delayed issuing her child Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP). She also complained the Council delayed obtaining Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) reports needed for the EHC needs assessment.
2. Mrs X says these delays caused stress for her and her family, negatively affecting her mental wellbeing.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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)
7. 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 not investigated

8. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
9. In this case, Mrs X appealed to the Tribunal about the contents of Y’s draft EHC Plan issued in March 2025. Appeal rights usually arise when a final plan has been issued, but the Tribunal on this occasion accepted an appeal at draft EHC Plan. Therefore, I have not investigated this element of Mrs X’s complaint or any issues arising from the date she appealed.
10. I have investigated the parts of the complaint not connected to the appeal, including the delay before the right of appeal arose.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. 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

Legislation and Guidance

EHC Plan

13. 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.
14. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section B: Special educational needs.  
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
• Section I: The name and/or type of educational placement.

Timescales and process for EHC assessment 

15. 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 decides not to conduct an EHC needs assessment it must give the child’s parent or 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 carry out an assessment, it must decide whether to issue an EHC Plan or refuse to issue a Plan within 16 weeks.

16. 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.

Advice and Information for EHC needs assessments

17. As part of the assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). This includes: 

• the child’s educational placement; 
• medical advice and information from health care professionals involved with the child; 
• psychological advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP); 
• social care advice and information; 
• advice and information from any person requested by the parent or young person, where the council considers it reasonable; and 
• any other advice and information the council considers appropriate for a satisfactory assessment. 

18. 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.  
19. Those consulted have a maximum of six weeks to provide the advice. 
20. The council may decide to seek additional advice, for example from an Occupational Therapist (OT) or Speech and Language Therapist (SALT), or the child’s parent or young person may request this. The council should decide if this is necessary based on the individual circumstances of the case.

Appeal rights

21. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified in their EHC Plan.

What happened

22. Mrs X requested an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for Y in December 2023. The Council agreed to assess in January 2024, within the correct timescale and notified Mrs X of its decision.
23. In September, Mrs X asked the Council for an update on the progress of the assessment.
24. In October, the Council received the Educational Psychologist (EP) report.
25. In November, Mrs X emailed the Council again for an update. She raised her concerns that Y’s behaviour had significantly escalated, and the school had temporarily excluded Y. She requested a meeting to try and progress the EHC assessment.
26. In December, the Council decided an EHC Plan was needed and emailed Mrs X to notify her that the Council would be drafting the plan, and it intended to provide it within one week.
27. In January 2025, Mrs X attended a co-production meeting. She says the Council told her it would be commissioning assessments from a Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) and an Occupational Therapist (OT).
28. In early February, the Council issued the draft EHC Plan naming a type of provision only. Mrs X emailed the Council with her proposed amendments and told them she would like to complain. She complained about the delay in getting the OT and SALT assessments and for the length of time taken to complete the EHC needs assessment.
29. In mid-February, the Council issued the final EHC Plan. Mrs X put in an appeal to the SEND Tribunal about the contents of the Plan.
30. In April, the Council wrote to Mrs X regarding her complaint. It recognised the delay in responding to her, and said that due to the appeal she had submitted, it could not consider her complaint.
31. Mrs X was unhappy with this response. She says the points of her complaint were separate to the appeal and the Council should consider the delay elements. In late April, she escalated her complaint.
32. The Council’s view did not change. It informed Mrs X the Tribunal was the correct route to pursue her concerns, and it would not consider her complaint. It signposted her to the Ombudsman.
33. Mrs X complained to us in late April.
34. A revised final EHC Plan was issued in July, following the Tribunal.
35. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided evidence that Y’s attendance at mainstream school did not significantly decline during the assessment period.
36. Mrs X provided evidence of Y being on a reduced timetable. This decision was made in partnership with the school because Y was struggling to regulate their behaviour.

My findings

37. The Council significantly delayed completing Y’s EHC needs assessment and issuing the final EHC Plan. The process should take no more than 20 weeks. In this case, it took 62 weeks. I can only consider the delay up to the point appeal rights became available to Mrs X, which was when the final plan was issued in February 2025. By that stage, the Council had already exceeded the statutory timescale by 41 weeks. This delay is fault.
38. Although the Council agreed to assess Y within the statutory timescales, it took six months to get the Educational Psychology report. It then took a further four months to complete the OT and SALT assessments. These delays happened before Mrs X appealed, and I have assessed the injustice based on this period.
39. Mrs X says the delays caused her significant stress and worry and affected Y’s access to education. The evidence shows that Y’s attendance at mainstream school did not significantly decline. However, the school reduced Y’s timetable to part-time hours to manage behaviour and support emotional regulation. This meant Y was accessing less education. The timetable changed regularly depending on how Y had coped each week.
40. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, that if the Council had issued the EHC Plan sooner, Y would have accessed full-time education. However, I am satisfied that the Council’s delay caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty.
41. During the delay, Y remained in school and received some special educational support, including 1:1 provision. However, the school told the Council it could not meet Y’s needs and that Y required a specialist school placement. This was reflected in the draft EHC Plan, which identified the need for specialist school placement and SALT provision.
42. Y did not receive any SALT during the assessment period. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that, because of the delay in completing the EHC needs assessment, Y missed out on special educational provision.
43. When considering an appropriate remedy, I have taken into account the support Y was receiving in the mainstream school, the provision set out in the draft EHC Plan, and the changes made in the final EHC Plan.

Back to top

Action

44. To remedy the injustice by the above faults, within four weeks of our final decision, the Council will:
• Apologise to Mrs X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• Pay Mrs X £600 to recognise the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused by a six-month delay in obtaining an Educational Psychologist report;
• Pay Mrs X £500 to recognise Y’s loss of special educational provision during the delay period; and
• Pay Mrs X £100 to recognise the distress caused by the delay issuing the EHC Plan after receiving Educational Psychologist advice.
45. Within three months of the date of our final decision, the Council will provide an update on its progress in meeting Objective 7 of its Priority Action and Improvement Plan. This objective aimed to bring performance in issuing final EHC Plans within 20 weeks, in line with national expectations, by September 2025. The Council will update us on if it has met this target. If not, it should provide a new action plan.
46. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman