Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for Y within statutory time limits. We find the Council at fault for delays in completing the assessment, causing frustration and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains about the process the Council followed when completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for his grandson, Y. The EHC needs assessment was requested in May 2024, but an EHC Plan was not issued until July 2025. As a result, Mr X says Y missed around a year of educational provision he would otherwise have been entitled to.

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 considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr 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

Relevant law and policy

7. 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. 
8. On receiving a request for an EHC needs assessment, a council must decide whether an assessment is necessary. As part of an EHC needs assessment, a council must seek advice from the parent, head teacher of the school, and from any other professionals, including an EP.
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 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 a Council decides to assess a child’s EHC needs, they must gather information from relevant professionals, who must respond within six weeks;
• If the Council decides not to issue an EHC Plan, it must explain this within 16 weeks from the date of the request.
• If it decides to issue an EHC Plan, the Council must then send a draft plan to the child’s parents, giving them 15 days to comment; and
• 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.

What happened

10. I have summarised below some key events leading to Mr X’s complaint. While I have considered everything said and submitted, this is not intended to be a detailed account of what took place.
11. Y lives with his grandfather, Mr X but parental responsibility for him is held by social care.
12. The Council received an EHC needs assessment request for Y from his school on 17 May 2024. The Council considered this request and issued a decision to assess on 26 June. The Council then requested the relevant advice for the assessment.
13. The Council chased the advice it required in August 2024 and September 2024.
14. On 4 October the Council missed the 20-week deadline to complete the assessment and issue an EHC Plan, if that is what it intended to do.
15. The Council then received the advice and completed the EHC needs assessment, issuing a draft EHC Plan on 16 October. The Council then began to consult with educational settings.
16. The Council discussed the consultation responses with social care and Mr X, but both parties had differing views on whether a mainstream or specialist setting would be more appropriate to meet Y’s needs.
17. By the end of November 2024 all consulted mainstream schools and two specialist schools had confirmed they could not meet Y’s needs. The Council has said Mr X had refused visits to three other specialist schools.
18. The Council then completed further consultations but could not find a placement for Y.
19. In January 2025 the Council consulted another school. Y visited this school in March 2025 and it agreed to offer him a place on a trial basis from June 2025.
20. The Council issued a final EHC Plan for Y on 25 July 2025. Almost ten months after the deadline to do so.
21. The Council has said there were several reasons for the delay including a disagreement between Mr X and social care as to placement type, multiple consultation referrals, and lack of an agreed placement from the holder of parental responsibility. The Council has also explained it had to chase medical information it needed to complete the assessment

Analysis

22. The Council received a request to assess Y’s EHC needs on 17 May 2024. The Council promptly agreed it would complete an EHC needs assessment but missed the deadline by which to decide whether it would issue an EHC Plan for Y. This is fault and caused uncertainty for Mr X and Y, which is injustice.
23. If the Council had completed the EHC needs assessment in line with statutory time limits, Y’s EHC Plan would have been finalised by 4 October 2024. However, the Council did not finalise Y’s EHC Plan until 25 July 2025, almost ten months after the deadline to do so. This is a considerable delay which caused significant uncertainty and frustration for Mr X and frustrated appeal rights to the Tribunal. The delays also created uncertainty around whether Y missed out on special educational provision he may have been entitled to between October 2024 and July 2025, which is injustice.
24. I appreciate the Council’s point there were multiple factors leading to the delay, including disagreements between Mr X and social care and needing to chase third parties for relevant advice. However, statutory guidance is clear on the Council’s duties and that the whole process must take no longer than 20 weeks, so the fault remains and means Mr X and Y were caused the identified injustice for almost ten months.

Back to top

Action

25. To address the injustice identified above, the Council should carry out the following actions within one month:
• Provide Mr X with a written apology for the injustice caused by the failure to complete Y’s EHC needs assessment within the statutory time limits. 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; and
• Pay Mr X £500 in recognition of the injustice caused by the delay in issuing a final EHC Plan for Y.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman