Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delays in issuing her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. She also says the Council’s communication was poor, it failed to respond to her Personal Budget request, and it mishandled the school consultation process. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in issuing Miss X’s son’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It was also at fault for its communication with Miss X and it delayed responding to her complaint. These faults caused Miss X frustration and upset, and Miss X’s son lost out on provision. The Council has agreed to apologise to Miss X, make a payment to her and implement a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained about the Council’s delays in issuing her son’s, Y, final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan after she requested an EHC needs assessment. She also says the Council’s communication was poor, it failed to respond to her Personal Budget request, it mishandled the school consultation process, and it delayed completing mediation. Finally, Miss X says the Council delayed responding to her complaint.
2. Miss X says the Council’s faults caused distress and upset and Y missed out on provision.

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. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
7. 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)

What I have and have not investigated

8. The Council engaged in mediation with Miss X in May 2025 (after she requested it in March 2025 because she disagreed with the content of Y’s EHC Plan). The Council issued an amended EHC Plan for Y in June 2025 after agreeing to Miss X’s amendments. I have not investigated Miss X’s complaint about the mediation process. The delays are not significant enough to warrant our involvement. The changes to Y’s EHC Plan during mediation were also minor, and so the injustice caused to Miss X and Y is not significant. Miss X also had an opportunity to ask the Council to increase or alter the provision during mediation if she thought the impact of its delay required it.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

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 needs 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.
• 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);  
• The council must consult with the parent or young person’s preferred educational placement who should respond within 15 calendar days.

12. As part of the assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). Those consulted have a maximum of six weeks to provide the advice. 

Personal Budget

13. A Personal Budget is the amount of money the council has identified it needs to pay to secure the provision in a child or young person’s EHC Plan. One way that councils can deliver a Personal Budget is through direct payments. These are cash payments made to the child’s parent or the young person so they can commission the provision in the EHC Plan themselves.
14. A child’s parent or the young person has the right to request a Personal Budget when the council has completed an EHC needs assessment and confirmed it will prepare an EHC Plan. They may also request a Personal Budget during a statutory review of an existing EHC Plan.
15. If the council refuses a request for a direct payment, it must set out the reasons in writing and inform the child’s parent or the young person of their right to request a formal review of the decision.

What happened

16. This chronology gives an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
17. Y has special educational needs. Miss X applied for the Council to complete an EHC needs assessment for Y in mid-April 2024. The Council sent a letter to Miss X in early May and refused to complete an assessment.
18. Miss X contacted the Tribunal and said she was unhappy with the Council’s decision.
19. Before the Tribunal registered an appeal, the Council overturned its decision and agreed to complete Y’s EHC needs assessment on 19 June. It asked for advice from professionals, including the educational psychologist (EP).
20. The Council received advice from the EP in August.
21. The Council agreed to issue Y with an EHC Plan. It sent Miss X a copy of Y’s draft EHC Plan in mid-October.
22. Miss X emailed the Council and asked for advice regarding Personal Budgets. The Council did not respond.
23. Miss X provided her comments on the draft EHC Plan at the end of October. She asked the Council to consult with her preferred choice of specialist school (School X).
24. The Council consulted with School X in mid-November.
25. The Council issued Y’s amended draft EHC Plan on 18 November.
26. School X responded at the end of November and said it could not meet Y’s needs.
27. Miss X sent the Council further representations about Y’s amended draft EHC Plan at the end of November.
28. Miss X emailed the Council at the end of January 2025. She said she had contacted School X, and it confirmed it had vacancies for September 2025 in Y’s cohort. She asked it to name School X in Y’s EHC Plan.
29. Miss X chased the Council for a response to her email in early February. The Council responded and said it would try to respond to her queries within five working days.
30. The Council sent consultations to other schools in February. It also sent Miss X another amended draft EHC Plan.
31. Miss X provided her comments on Y’s amended draft EHC Plan.
32. The Council sent a further consultation letter to School X on 20 February. School X responded and confirmed it had no objections to being named in Y’s EHC Plan from September 2025.
33. The Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan on 6 March. It named the mainstream school Y was attending until July 2025. It named School X as the placement for Y to attend from September 2025.
34. Miss X complained to the Council on 20 March. She said it delayed issuing Y’s EHC Plan. She also said the Council’s communication was poor and it had failed to respond to her Personal Budget request.
35. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in mid-May. It accepted there were significant delays in issuing Y’s EHC Plan. It also accepted its communication should have been better and that it missed the Personal Budget request. It apologised and offered £900.
36. Miss X referred her complaint to stage two on 16 May. She provided further information on 29 May. She said the Council mishandled the consultation process. Finally, she said it had failed to respond to her complaint in accordance with its policy.
37. The Council issued its final response to Miss X’s complaint in June. It upheld her complaints and apologised for the distress and upset caused.

Back to top

Analysis

38. We expect councils to follow the statutory timescales set out in the law and the Code. The Council received Y’s EHC needs assessment on 16 April 2024. It refused to complete the assessment in May 2024, and then later reversed its decision and agreed to complete the assessment on 19 June 2024. The law or guidance does not say the statutory clock stops and restarts where a council has initially refused to carry out an EHC needs assessment and then changes its mind on review. Therefore, the Council should have issued Y’s final EHC Plan by 3 September 2024. It failed to meet this deadline as it issued his first EHC Plan on 6 March 2025. This significant delay is fault.
39. Miss X asked the Council in October 2024 for advice on the Personal Budget. The Council failed to respond. This is fault.
40. The Council was also at fault for its overall communication with Miss X. There were many occasions where she had to repeatedly chase for responses and the Council failed to keep her properly updated.
41. The Council also failed to be open and transparent with Miss X on the schools it was consulting with. It should have ensured Miss X was properly involved in the consultation process.
42. The Council had 20 working days at stage one to respond to Miss X’s complaint. The Council failed to meet this deadline. It took two months to issue its stage two response.
43. The Council’s faults outlined above have caused Miss X significant distress and upset about Y’s education. The Council’s failure to communicate with her effectively and its delay in responding to her complaint compounds this injustice.
44. The Council’s faults have also caused Y a significant injustice. But for the Council’s fault, I consider, on balance, Y would have received special educational provision from September 2024 onwards, rather than from March 2025.
45. The Council offered Miss X £900 when it responded to her complaint. I do not consider this is sufficient to remedy the injustice in this case. I have made further recommendations.

Back to top

Action

46. By 20 March 2026 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Miss X for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Pay Miss X £2,300 to recognise the loss of Y’s special educational provision.
• Pay Miss X £200 for her frustration and distress.
• Issue written reminders to relevant staff to ensure they are aware they must comply with the timescales under the statutory guidance and the Code when they are completing an EHC needs assessment.

47. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

48. There was fault by the Council, which caused Miss X and Y an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman