Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child within statutory timeframes. We found the Council at fault for significant delays, causing significant distress and frustration for the family. The Council has agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for her child within statutory timeframes. This has caused significant frustration with the prolonged wait for an outcome about her child’s needs and provision, negatively impacting on the family and delaying Mrs X’s appeal rights.

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. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
4. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered her views.
8. I considered the Council’s responses to Mrs X’s complaint, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mrs 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

Law and administrative background

Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans

10. A child 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.
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 assessments and producing EHC Plans. The guidance is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEND 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. 
12. 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.
13. As part of the EHC needs assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND 2014 Regulations, Regulation 6(1)). This includes advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP). Those consulted have six weeks to provide the advice.
14. Parents have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. This is only engaged once a decision not to assess, issue or amend a plan has been made and sent to the parent or a final EHC plan has been issued.

What happened – summary of key relevant events I am considering

15. In early March 2024, Mrs X submitted an EHC needs assessment request to the Council for her child (Y). In December 2024, the Council received the Educational Psychologist (EP) report.
16. In mid-March 2025, the Council confirmed it would issue an EHC Plan for Y.

In May 2025, Mrs X formally complained to the Council about the delays as it missed statutory timeframes.

17. The Council responded at Stage 1. It acknowledged the unacceptable delays with the process. It said this was down to large volumes of demand with limited staffing, along with pressures of sickness and leave. It also apologised for the poor levels of communication it had with her and poor standard of service. It was seeking to improve the timeliness of the process.
18. Mrs X escalated her complaint. She added dissatisfaction with the content of the draft EHC Plan sent and outlined the significant impacts the matter was having on Y and her family. In June 2025, the Council responded at Stage 2 and continued to uphold her complaint. In a later final response, it offered Mrs X £500 as a remedy. Mrs X then complained to us.
19. I spoke with Mrs X, and she said she did not accept the Council’s remedy offer. She confirmed the Council issued a final EHC Plan for Y in September 2025 and had since appealed it.

Analysis

20. The Council received the request for the EHC needs assessment in early March 2024. If a council decides to issue an EHC Plan, it should do this within 20 weeks of a request. In this case, it should have done this by late July 2024. The Council did not issue a final EHC Plan until September 2025. This is a significant delay of roughly 13 months.
21. It appears the first five months of delay was down to the Council not receiving advice from an EP until December 2024. We recognise there is a national shortage of EPs affecting many areas. We describe this as fault in the form of service failure (see Paragraph 3).
22. After receiving this advice, we would have expected the Council to follow statutory timescales set out in the Code to issue a final EHC Plan. This is usually up to eight weeks after the EP report which means it could have been issued by mid to late February 2025. The Council then delayed with drafting, consulting and issuing a final EHC Plan which took it a further 6 and a half months. This fault is maladministration.
23. The Council’s faults with delays caused significant frustration and distress for Mrs X and Y as they had to wait notably longer than necessary to receive a final EHC Plan, with a lack of timely updates. This also significantly delayed Mrs X’s right to appeal, which is further injustice. I welcome the Council offering Mrs X a remedy of £500 as acknowledgement of its fault, however I do not consider this enough to address the injustice caused. I made recommendations for appropriate amounts below, which is in line with our Guidance on Remedies.
24. In her complaint to the Council, Mrs X raised issues with previous draft Plans, consultations, and lack of assessments from other professionals for the EHC needs assessment process. This is not something we can consider (see Paragraph 4). Once appeal rights are triggered, we cannot look at anything which happened before this started. This is because it is too closely connected to the EHC Plan which is the subject of the appeal and issues during the process could also be considered by the Tribunal.

Back to top

Agreed Action

25. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
1. Apologise in writing to Mrs X and Y (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the faults identified; and
2. Pay Mrs X a symbolic payment totalling £1,200. This is made up of:
• £700 to recognise the impact caused by the months of delay due to EP delay; and
• £500 to recognise the impact of the Council’s fault with the further months of delay after this.
26. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
27. In late 2025, we raised concerns about the Council’s fault affecting others and the widespread impact. We asked the Council to provide us with a further SEN improvement plan. We received this in late October 2025, and this included actions to focus on adhering to statutory timescales for EHC Plans. This will need to time to embed and we will monitor progress through our casework. I therefore do not consider it necessary to make any further service improvement recommendations at this time.

Back to top

Decision

28. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman