Summary: Mrs X complained about delays in the Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan process and a delay in issuing a final EHC Plan for her son E. Mrs X also complained the Council has failed to provide alternative education for E when he became too unwell to attend school regularly. We found the delays in the EHC needs assessment process and in issuing a final EHC Plan are fault. As was the failure to ensure E received a suitable education between April 2025 and July 2025. These faults have caused Mrs X and E an injustice. The Council will apologise and make payments to remedy this injustice

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about delays in the Education Health and Care Plan process and a delay in issuing a final EHC Plan for her son E.
2. Mrs X also complained the Council has failed to provide alternative education for E when he became too unwell to attend school regularly.

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 the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(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(1), 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 Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan

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 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. Those consulted have a maximum of six weeks to provide the advice.

Alternative provision

12. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that councils must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child. The alternative educational provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.
13. If a council discovers a child is absent from school for an extended period, it should consider the reasons for this, and take account of evidence from relevant parties (such as the child’s school, parents, and medical professionals). It must then decide whether it has a duty to make alternative educational provision.
14. If a council wants to see medical or other evidence, it should ask for it at the earliest opportunity. The council should account for any challenges a parent might have in obtaining evidence, and review its position based on any new evidence it receives.
15. Councils should consider any attempts the school is making to support the child. This might involve sending work home for the child to complete, arranging disability related support, placing the child on a reduced timetable, or providing online education as a short-term measure. If there is a clear, effective, and time-bound plan for reintegration then there may be no immediate role for the council in providing alternative education.
16. If the council decides it must arrange alternative provision, it needs to arrange provision based on the child’s individual needs. It should also have a review process to ensure the provision remains in the child’s best interests. Councils can decide a child cannot cope with full-time provision, especially where the reason for their non-attendance is medical. When this happens, the Council should provide reasons for the amount of provision it arranges.
17. Councils should also think about the steps needed to reintegrate the child back into their usual school setting, through ongoing conversations with relevant professionals and the parents.

What happened here

18. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not cover everything that has happened in this case.
19. Mrs X’s son E started at secondary school in September 2024. The attendance records show E attended regularly in September 2024 but his attendance then declined. Mrs X met with the school in December 2024 to discuss how to support E. In January 2025 the school implemented targeted support to increase his attendance. This included a part time timetable of two days a week. Despite these strategies E was still unable to attend school regularly. By 21 March 2025 E’s attendance for the academic year was 34.6%. He then stopped attending school.
20. E’s school requested an EHC needs assessment on 3 April 2025. The Council confirmed on 9 May 2025 that it would carry out an assessment. It told Mrs X it would complete the assessment and decide whether to issue an EHC Plan by 23 July 2025. If it decided E needed an EHC Plan, it would then aim to issue this by 20 August 2025.
21. In early 2025 a social worker carried out an assessment and recommended E be supported by a Child in Need (CIN) plan. The Council held an initial CIN meeting in April 2025. The records of this meeting note the school had not seen E since March 2025 and did not think it could meet his needs as his attendance was so low. The school and Mrs X considered E needed to move to a more therapeutical educational setting to support his emotional and behavioural needs.
22. The records say efforts to secure funding for additional support were discussed. They note that as E does not have and EHC Plan his options are limited due to funding.
23. On 23 May 2025 Mrs X received a letter advising there would be a delay in undertaking an Educational Psychologist (EP) assessment, which could take up to six months.
24. A further CIN meeting in early June 2025 reviewed the Plan in place. The minutes note the action from the initial meeting was "To look for alternative education provision for [E] whilst his EHC Plan is being drafted and the right provision agreed upon”. The update notes the school do not feel they can meet E’s needs and have reduced his timetable to 1 day a week. A package of support needs to be provided to support E to be learning while he EHC Plan process continues.
25. An Education Wellbeing Advisor suggested the school could apply for section 19 provision. They advised support from a medical professional would be required for a section 19 application.
26. Shortly after the meeting E’s school requested section 19 alternative provision for E. The Council agreed to provide education support via the Hospital School. Mrs X visited the hospital school in July 2025 and it was agreed a tutor would meet E at home in September 2025 with a view to introducing online maths lessons.
27. In July 2025 Mrs X instructed solicitors who sent a letter before claim to the Council for judicial review of the Council’s failure to comply with its statutory duties. It said the Council’s delay in completing E’s EHC needs assessment had caused significant harm to E’s ability to access appropriate support and education.
28. The letter noted E has experienced school-based anxiety and emotional based school avoidance since December 2023. And had been unable to attend school since March 2025.
29. The Council’s response acknowledged the frustration the delay was causing and said it was due to allocate E’s assessment to an EP by November 2025. The EP would then complete the assessment within six weeks.
30. The Council said the shortage of EPs was a national concern and set out the action it had taken to recruit and retain staff.
31. Mrs X then made a formal complaint in August 2025 about the delay in completing the EHC needs assessment. She said E was unable to attend school due to SEND and unmet mental/ emotional health needs. The needs assessment should have been completed by 23 July 2025 but this deadline had been missed. Mrs X asked the Council to allocate an EP and complete the EHC Plan process by 20 August 2025. And to then provide E with educational provision.
32. The Council responded on 9 September 2025 and apologised for the delay in allocating an EP. It said an EP would be allocated by 20 November 2025 at the latest and the assessment and advice would then be provided within six weeks.
33. E began online maths lessons for 30 minutes per week in September 2025. This was reviewed in October 2025. As E had said he did not want to increase the number of sessions, it was agreed to increase the length of the session to one hour.
34. The Council allocated an EP to assess E on 31 October 2025 and the EP completed their report on 1 December 2025. On 12 December 2025 the Council confirmed it would issue an EHC Plan.
35. Mrs X has asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint. In response to our enquiries the Council says its inclusion team was aware of the potential need for section 19 provision on 3 June 2025 following discussions at a Child in Need (CIN) meeting. It says it had previously appeared that E should be able to be in school and that the reason for his absence was potentially zero demand parenting style and the parents’ capacity to drive him to school. The Council has not provided any evidence of how, when or by whom this view was reached.
36. The Council says that in the first instance it always tries a small-stepped plan to try and transition the child slowly back to school. It says Mrs X was clear she felt unable to try this approach.
37. The Council does not consider there was any delay in providing alternative provision. It says it first needed to ascertain that section 19 provision was needed as there was no medical evidence available to say that E needed it. The Council says it offered a transition plan to support E back to school but Mrs X declined this. It then offered Hospital School support. It says this took a long time to set up as Mrs X was unable to visit to start the process.
38. In relation to the EHC needs assessment the Council says there has been a significant increase in demand for statutory assessments which has affected its ability to meet expected timescales. It said its Educational Psychology service had also faced challenges in providing advice within statutory deadlines and this was compounded by a national shortage of EPs. To address this the Council says it is implementing recruitment initiatives and developing a “grow your own” psychologist model.
39. The increased demand had also impacted the SEND Operations Team’s capacity to processes assessments promptly. It has now restructured the team and is reviewing staff training and processes to improve the service it provides.
40. The Council says it identified some time ago that the Inclusion and Learning service was not working effectively enough to meet the needs of children and families. It says this was due to a history of silo working, poor or absent management and leadership and a lack of professional development and accountability measures.
41. It has carried out a huge scale re-design to improve its services. The Council says this particular case is an example of the legacy of ineffectiveness of its systems and leadership. But that this is rapidly changing.
42. The Council issued a Draft EHC Plan for E in February 2026.

Analysis

43. The Council’s failure to complete the EHC needs assessment and issue a final Plan in accordance with the statutory timeframes is fault. The Council agreed to carry out an EHC needs assessment on 9 May 2025 and told Mrs X, if necessary, it would issue a Plan by 20 August 2025. As of early March 2026 the Council had still not issued a Final EHC Plan.
44. The Ombudsman takes the view that councils 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.
45. The delay in completing the needs assessment and in issuing a final EHC Plan caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty and put her to unnecessary time and trouble. I consider the Council should make a symbolic payment to recognise the frustration and distress Mrs X has experienced.
46. I also consider there to be fault in the way the Council considered whether it had a section 19 duty to arrange alternative education.
47. The Council would have been aware E was on a reduced time table since January 2025 and was aware from both the EHC needs assessment request and the CIN meeting in April 2025 that E had not attended school since March 2025.
48. Once the Council was aware E was not attending school it should have considered whether it had a section 19 duty to provide suitable alternative provision. There is no evidence the Council considered at this stage whether it had a duty to provide D with section 19 provision. This is fault.
49. But for this fault, I consider it more likely than not the Council would have accepted a section 19 duty in April 2025. It should then have arranged alternative provision.
50. When the Council considered its section 19 duties in June 2025 it agreed to provide alternative education provision via the Hospital School. An appointment was arranged in July 2025 to discuss transition for E to start in September 2025. No provision was arranged before the end of the summer term. The failure to arrange for immediate alternative provision is fault.
51. The Council’s failure to meet its section 19 duties means that E missed out on a suitable education for a term during an important year in his school career.
52. When a young person has missed education as a result of fault by the Council, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment of between £900 to £2,400 per term to acknowledge the education they have missed and help them to catch up. In determining an appropriate level we will take account of factors such as:
• the child’s SEN as set out in the EHC plan;
• any educational provision that was made during the period;
• Whether additional provision now can remedy some or all of that loss; and
• Whether the period affected was a significant one in a child’s school career, for example the first year of compulsory education, the transfer to secondary school, or the period preparing for public exams.
53. In the circumstances I consider a payment of £2000 for the failure to provide an appropriate education between April 2025 and July 2025 would be appropriate.
54. The Council has explained following similar cases investigated by the Ombudsman the action it is taking to meet the demands in its SEND service and to reduce the backlog in the EHC needs assessment process. This includes ongoing recruitment of EPs and SEN case officers. It has also published a new Section 19 policy. I therefore have not recommended further service improvements. We continue to monitor the Council’s ongoing work to reduce the backlog through our casework.

Back to top

Action

55. The Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mrs X and E for the delays in the EHC assessment process and not providing a suitable education between April 2025 and July 2025. 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 Mrs X £2,000 in recognition of E’s missed education between April 2025 and July 2025. Mrs X should use this for E’s educational benefit as she sees fit.
• pay Mrs X £600 to recognise the avoidable distress and frustration caused by the six-month delay in issuing E’s EHC Plan due to a shortage of EPs. It will also make an ongoing payment of £100 a month as an ongoing remedy until it issues E’s final EHC Plan, up to a maximum of six months after my final decision.
56. The Council should take this action within one month of the final decision of this complaint and provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman