Summary: The Council failed to adhere to the statutory timescales for the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for Mrs X’s child, Y. It incorrectly told Mrs X an Educational Psychologist report was required and significantly delayed issuing Y’s Plan after it became aware a new report was not required. The delay caused a loss of specialist provision to Y between November 2024 and October 2025. The Council will apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the loss of provision, distress, frustration and uncertainty the delay caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about delays in the Education, Health, Care (EHC) needs assessment process for her child Y. She said the Council:
• delayed issuing a final EHC Plan in line with statutory timescales; and
• poorly communicated with Mrs X throughout the process.
2. Mrs X says the matter has caused distress, frustration and uncertainty and impacted on Y’s education.

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.

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Education, Health, and Care needs assessments

8. 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.
• 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).
9. As part of the EHC assessment councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND 2014 Regulations, Regulation 6(1)). This includes advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP). It must also seek advice and information from other professionals requested by the parent, if it considers it is reasonable to do so. Those consulted have six weeks to provide the advice.
10. 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.

What happened

11. Mrs X’s child, Y, has special educational needs (SEN) which impacts their ability to receive an education.
12. In June 2024, Y’s school asked the Council to complete an EHC needs assessment for them. As part of this she submitted a privately obtained Educational Psychologist (EP) report.
13. The Council agreed to assess Y in July 2024. At the end of October 2024, a senior EP advised the EP report submitted by Mrs X as part of Y’s EHC needs assessment request was suitable with no further county EP involvement required. A corresponding internal email said placing Y on a waiting list to see an EP would cause unnecessary delay and may prevent their assessment from being completed in statutory timescales.
14. In November 2024, Mrs X complained to the Council and requested an update on Y’s EHC needs assessment. The Council said it was awaiting EP involvement for an addendum report however there was delays in the service due to a shortage of educational psychologists. It advised that once it had received the EP report, a decision would be made as to whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan.
15. Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two, she said the Council had failed to explain why it was seeking further EP advice when she had already submitted her private report. She said the delays were preventing Y from getting the support they required.
16. At the end of December 2024, the Council agreed to issue an EHC Plan for Y and replied to her stage two complaint. It said:
• It had received a further EP report in December and this had been accepted by panel;
• It recognised Mrs X’s concerns regarding statutory timescales and the impact on her right of appeal; and
• Y’s EHC Plan would be prioritised and a draft plan issued to Mrs X for comment within the next two weeks.
17. At the end of January 2025, the Council sent Mrs X a draft EHC Plan for Y.
18. In April 2025 and May 2025, Mrs X repeatedly asked the Council when she would receive the final EHC Plan for Y.
19. Unhappy with the Council’s actions and responses, Mrs X asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint.
20. The Council issued Y’s final EHC plan in October 2025, and Y began attending their new placement from November 2025. The provision in Section F of the Plan includes specialist 1:1 teacher throughout the day, small classes and daily interventions to support communication, academic, social and emotional development.

The Council’s response to the Ombudsman

21. The Council said it used the EP report provided by Mrs X during the EHC needs assessment to write the Plan. It said it had never commissioned an additional EP assessment or requested an addendum and had incorrectly told Mrs X that a new report with addendum was needed.
22. Educational Psychology services had told it in October 2024 that no further EP involvement was required, and a report sufficiency check had confirmed this in mid-December 2024.
23. Mrs X had repeatedly had to chase it for updates on progress and there were gaps in its responses to her.
24. The Council said significant delays to the statutory process had been caused by its late drafting of the EHC Plan, long periods of limited case management, staff capacity and slow consultation. It identified actions it should have taken to ensure the final plan had been issued significantly earlier.

Analysis

The EHC needs assessment process

25. We expect councils to follow statutory timescales set out in the law and the Code. We are likely to find fault where there are significant breaches of those timescales.
26. Following Mrs X’s request for an EHC needs assessment and the Council’s agreement to issue, a final Plan should have been issued by the start of November 2024. The Council issued Y’s final Plan in mid-October 2025.
27. In total the Council took 49 weeks to assess and issue Y’s final EHC Plan instead of the 20-week statutory timescale due to errors in communication and poor case management.
28. Mrs X provided a privately commissioned EP report for Y as part of her needs assessment request. A senior EP told the Council this was suitable in October 2024 however the Council subsequently incorrectly told Mrs X an addendum was needed.
29. The delay in issuing the final EHC Plan and the miscommunication was fault. It meant Y missed out on the opportunity receive the specialist provision outlined in their EHC Plan for three terms. But for the delay, it is likely, on balance that Y would have started receiving provision much earlier. The delay also caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty and delayed her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal, which she chose not to use on receiving Y’s final EHC Plan.
30. The Council has an action plan in place to mitigate the impact and address the challenges it faces regarding EHC assessments and reviews. We have as part of previous investigation and recommendations found its action plan to be appropriate to address the challenges the Council is experiencing. I have therefore not made any further service improvement recommendations.

Back to top

Action

31. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mrs X, the Council will, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mrs X to acknowledge the injustice its service failure caused. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Pay Mrs X £3,300 to remedy the loss of provision to Y and the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to Mrs X, due to delays in the EHC needs assessment process.
32. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I have found find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman