Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to finalise her daughter, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan within legal timescales and did not communicate properly with her. Ms X says this impacted her financially and distressed her and Y. The Council was at fault for failing to issue an EHC Plan for Y within legal timescales and for poor communication with Ms X. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to finalise her daughter, Y’s, EHC Plan within legal timescales and did not communicate properly with her. Ms X says this impacted her financially and distressed her and Y.

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. 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)
4. 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

5. I read Ms X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms 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

Background Information

8. 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. 
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. 
• 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).
• Councils must give the child’s parent or the young person 15 days to comment on a draft EHC Plan and express a preference for an educational placement.

10. 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. 

11. 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.  
12. Those consulted have a maximum of six weeks to provide the advice. 
13. 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.
14. The Council has a two stage corporate complaints procedure. The Council should issue its stage 1 response within 20 working days. Stage 2 is a review of the stage 1 complaint. The Council should issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days.

What happened

15. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
16. Y’s school submitted an EHC needs assessment application for Y to the Council in May 2024.
17. In June 2024, the Council agreed to conduct an EHC needs assessment and requested an EP report.
18. The SALT sent the report to the Council in July 2024 as a contribution to the EHC needs assessment.
19. Ms X said she paid for Y’s SALT from September 2024.
20. The EP sent the report to the Council in early November 2024 as a contribution to the EHC needs assessment.
21. Ms X complained to the Council in January 2025. She complained she had to pay for Y’s SALT sessions when the Council should have been paying for them.
22. The Council responded to the complaint in January 2025. The response said the Council was preparing the draft EHC Plan and there was no evidence to suggest it would include the SALT Ms X had paid for.
23. Ms X immediately asked the Council to escalate her complaint . The Council initially replied to say it was reviewing including the SALT in the EHC Plan. The Council said it could not refund any money to Ms X because it could only fund therapy provision once it was agreed in the EHC Plan.
24. The Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan in March 2025. The plan included provision of SALT Ms X had previously paid for.
25. The Council issued its stage two response after the final EHC Plan. The Council apologised to Ms X for the delay in responding. The Council’s stage two complaint response accepted it delayed issuing Y’s EHC Plan. The Council repeated it could not refund Ms X for therapy costs because it could only agree funding once it made a decision on the EHC Plan.
26. The Council wrote to Ms X in June 2024 and has no record of any further communication with Ms X until January 2025.
27. Ms X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Ms X would like the Council to repay £450 of the costs she paid for SALT and pay compensation for Y’s suffering due to the delays in agreeing Y’s EHC Plan.
28. In response to my enquiries the Council accepted it delayed issuing the EHC Plan. The Council confirmed the Plan would have included SALT if it issued the plan earlier. It accepted it failed to tell Ms X it agreed to issue the EHC Plan in November 2024 . The Council accepted this had caused uncertainty and distress.

My findings

EHC Plan

29. The statutory guidance, detailed in paragraph nine, sets out the timescales for the Council to complete an EHC needs assessment and issue a final EHC Plan. The Council had twenty weeks to issue Y’s final EHC Plan from the point when the school requested the assessment in May 2024. It should have issued the plan in October 2024. It did not issue the final plan until March 2025. This five-month delay is fault.
30. The EP’s advice was due in August 2024. The Council received the EP report in November 2024, a three month delay. The Council is responsible for commissioning the EP advice and information. The delay in receiving advice was due to a nationwide shortage of EPs. The Ombudsman can make findings of fault where there is a failure to provide a service, regardless of the reasons for that service failure. While I accept there are justifiable reasons the EP advice was delayed, the delay was nonetheless fault.
31. Even after considering the three month delay in receiving the EP advice, the Council should have issued the final EHC plan by January 2025. The Council issued the plan in March 2025. This two-month delay by the Council is fault.
32. The Ombudsman takes the view that Council’s must abide by the statutory and legislative requirements under the SEN legislation and guidance. The Council’s failure to meet the required timeframes here is fault. This distressed Ms X and frustrated her appeal right to the SEND Tribunal.
33. The Council accepted it was at fault in failing to meet the legal timescales for undertaking the EHC needs assessment for Y. The Council has offered to apologise and pay Ms X £500. It also offered £100 to recognise the uncertainty caused by the delays. This offer is in line with our guidance on remedies.
34. Following previous investigations, the Council has explained the steps it is taking to resolve issues with EHC needs assessments. Because the Council is already taking suitable steps, I have not made any service improvement recommendations. We will continue to monitor the Council’s progress through our casework.

SALT provision

35. The Council has accepted it would have included Y’s SALT provision in the EHC Plan if it issued it earlier. The Council received Y’s SALT report in July 2024. Therefore, the Council knew Y needed SALT provision before the EHC Plan deadline. The delay in issuing the plan meant a delay in the Council funding Y’s SALT.
36. The Council delayed funding Y’s SALT. This is fault. This distressed Ms X and resulted in Ms X paying costs the Council should have met as part of the final EHC plan. The Council has offered to pay Ms X £450 in recognition of the costs she incurred. This offer is in line with our guidance on remedies .

Complaint handling

37. The Council issued its stage 2 complaint response 47 working days after Ms X’s stage 2 complaint. This exceeded the Council’s 20 working days timescale detailed in paragraph 14. This is fault. This caused uncertainty for Ms X.
38. The Council has accepted there was a delay in the stage 2 complaint response and has apologised to Ms X. This apology is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Communication

39. The Council can only evidence a single contact with Ms X during the EHC assessment process up to January 2025. The Council has accepted it failed to tell Ms X it agreed to issue the EHC Plan . The Council failed to properly communicate with Ms X during the EHC needs assessment process. This is fault, distressing and frustrating Ms X.

Back to top

Action

40. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Ms X by the faults I have identified, the Council agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Ms X for the delays issuing the final EHC Plan and funding SALT and for failing to properly communicate with her during the EHC assessment process. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Ms X the £500 it offered to recognise the delay in issuing Y’s final EHC Plan.
• Pay Ms X the £100 it offered to recognise the uncertainty caused by the Council delays.
• Pay Ms X the £450 it offered to reimburse the costs of the SALT provision Ms X paid for during the delays.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I have found fault by the Council which caused injustice to Ms X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman