Summary: The Council was at fault. It failed to complete Mrs X’s child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment within statutory timeframes which caused Mrs X uncertainty and delayed her appeal rights to the Tribunal. The Council also failed to consider whether it owed Y a Section 19 duty to put alternative provision in place and to maintain oversight of its delegated responsibilities when Y’s school put them on a reduced timetable in April and June 2025 causing further uncertainty to Mrs X and Y. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X and Y to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment within statutory timeframes. She said the Council’s delay caused avoidable distress to both Y and her, impacted on Y’s education and caused her financial hardship as she had to reduce her work hours to support Y. She wants the Council to issue Y’s EHC Plan as soon as possible and make a payment for the avoidable distress this caused.

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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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

What I have and have not investigated

7. I have investigated what happened between August 2024 when Ms X requested a EHC needs assessment for Y and July 2025 when the Council issued its final complaint response to Mrs X.
8. I have also investigated matters that happened after the Council’s final complaint response to Mrs X between July 2025 and October 2025 when the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan because I consider they are matters of continuing fault and injustice, and I have sufficient evidence to reach a sound and balanced decision.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant law and guidance

Timescales and process for EHC 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 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.
• The council must consult with the parent or young person’s preferred educational placement who should respond within 15 calendar days.

Alternative provision and the Section 19 duty

12. Councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils who are out of school because of exclusion, illness or for other reasons, if they would not receive suitable education without such arrangements. [The provision generally should be full-time unless it is not in the child’s interests.] (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision.
13. We have issued guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to provide education for children who, for whatever reason, do not attend school full-time. Out of school, out of sight? published July 2022.
14. We made six recommendations. Councils should:

• consider the individual circumstances of each case and be aware that a council may need to act whatever the reason for absence (except for minor issues that schools deal with on a day-to-day basis) – even when a child is on a school roll;
• consult all the professionals involved in a child's education and welfare, taking account of the evidence when making decisions;
• choose (based on all the evidence) whether to require attendance at school or provide the child with suitable alternative provision;
• keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing it if a child’s capacity to learn increases;
• work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to mainstream education as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary;
• put the chosen action into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.

What happened

15. Mrs X has a child, Y, who experienced difficulties at school and exhibited challenging behaviour linked to complex mental health needs. In July 2024, Y’s school contacted the Council to raise concerns that Y may require an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment.
16. In August 2024, Mrs X asked the Council to carry out an EHC needs assessment for Y.
17. The same month the Council contacted Mrs X confirming it had received her assessment request and confirmed it had sought advice from an Educational Psychologist (EP).
18. In September the Council decided to assess Y.
19. In December, Mrs X said Y’s school sent her a letter stating it was considering excluding Y. She said she shared the letter with the Council in early January 2025 but did not receive a response.
20. The same month Mrs X contacted the Council again requesting it to urgently progress Y’s EHC needs assessment. She said she did not receive a response to her email.
21. At the end of January 2025, Y’s school contacted the Council to report that Y’s behaviour had become increasingly challenging and was affecting other pupils’ learning. The school explained that Y was at risk of suspension or permanent exclusion. It said although it had assigned a staff member to support Y, it had not received any additional funding to provide this additional support.
22. In March Mrs X complained to the Council about the delays in the EHC needs assessment process.
23. In April, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It upheld the complaint and explained that the delay in assessing Y was due to a national shortage of Educational Psychologists (EPs), high demand for assessments, and the Council’s own workforce shortages. The Council proposed involving a specialist teacher, Ms Z, to discuss support options with Y’s school. It said Ms Z would contact Y’s school to discuss possible support options while the EHC needs assessment remained outstanding and would assist the school in implementing interim resources to support Y.
24. Mrs X escalated her complaint to the next stage of the Council’s complaint process. She said the Council’s proposed interim solution of involving Ms Z was inadequate as Ms Z visited Y already in March and she was unable to offer any effective strategies to support Y in the interim. In the meantime, Mrs X said Y’s education and wellbeing worsened and the school put Y on a reduced timetable for a week.
25. The same month, the Council responded to Mrs X at stage two of its complaints procedure. It acknowledged a significant backlog due to a substantial increase in EHC needs assessment requests as a cause for the delays in completing Y’s EHC needs assessment, it apologised it could not yet provide a concrete plan or clear timescale moving forward. The Council also confirmed Ms Z had observed Y only in a classroom setting in March as part of a group and did not have an individual involvement with Y which is what it had proposed as an interim solution for Y as part of its stage one complaint response.
26. Mrs X escalated her complaint to the final stage of the Council’s complaint process. She said as a result of the Council’s delay and lack of timely support Y was at least two years behind in their education and at daily risk of exclusion from school. She said Y was displaying distressed and disruptive behaviours daily and the school had put Y again on a reduced timetable. She requested an urgent EP assessment and demanded Y’s EHC Plan be put in place by the start of the new academic year in September 2025.
27. Shortly afterwards, dissatisfied with the continued delays in Y’s assessment, Mrs X complained to us.
28. In June 2025 the Council said Ms Z visited Y at school and started an individual piece of work to provide Y’s school with personalised strategies to help them communicate.
29. Following Ms Z’s visit with Y, the school, with support from the Specialist Teaching Advice Team, issued a risk reduction plan to the Council outlining key strategies. The plan set out measures to manage Y’s behaviours and challenges within the school environment and noted that Y had been on a reduced timetable since mid-June 2025.
30. In early July, the Council contacted Mrs X and informed her it had allocated Y an EP.
31. In July, the Council issued its final complaint response to Mrs X. It explained that an EP had now been assigned to assess Y, and their report was expected within four weeks. Following this, the Council would prepare a draft plan and present it to the Post Assessment Panel (PAP), which would decide whether Y should receive an EHC Plan. The Council also stated it could not guarantee the plan would be in place by September 2025 - the start of the new academic year. The Council further told Mrs X to remain in regular contact with the school over how they can continue to support Y.
32. In its final complaint response, the Council acknowledged it failed to meet the statutory timescales in issuing Y’s EHC Plan and offered Mrs X a payment of £500 for the avoidable distressed this caused Y and her. Mrs X did not accept the Council’s remedy offer.
33. In July 2025, Mrs X contacted the Council to request that Y repeat their current school year to rebuild confidence and re-engage with learning. She also asked for alternative provision to be arranged from September 2025 as Y was no longer able to access education due to the decline in their mental health. At that time, Y was due to start the new academic year on a reduced timetable. The following day, the Council responded acknowledging Mrs X’s requests and advised that it was the school’s responsibility to provide suitable education.
34. At the time of our enquiries, the Council said it completed the assessment process and issued Y’s final EHC Plan in October 2025. Following mediation, it issued an amended final Plan in December 2025, which Mrs X appealed to the Tribunal. The Council also confirmed that Mrs X and her family moved out of its area in August 2025 but did not initially inform it. The Council transferred responsibility for Y’s EHC Plan to the new council in in February 2026.

My findings

EHC needs assessment

35. We expect councils to follow statutory timescales set out in the law and the Code. We are likely to find fault where there are breaches of those timescales.
36. After agreeing to carry out an EHC needs assessment for Y the Council should have made a decision whether to assess Y within six weeks by September 2024 and ten weeks later by early December 2024 whether to issue an EHC Plan. The Council should have then issued the final Plan by early January 2025. The Council did not issue Y’s final EHC Plan until early October 2025 which was a delay of around 40 weeks or nine months. That was fault and caused Mrs X uncertainty and delayed her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal which she used.
37. The EP report should have been available to the Council by early November 2024 for it to have met the December 2024 deadline for deciding whether to issue an EHC Plan. The EP report was not complete until the start of August 2025 which was a delay of 40 weeks and fault. It caused a delay in the Council deciding whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan. This service failure came about due to national shortage of EPs, the Councill’s high demand for assessments, and its own workforce shortages.
38. In total, the Council has taken just over one year to assess Y instead of the 20 weeks statutory timescales due to the delay in obtaining EP advice and because of backlogs and staffing issues in its SEND service.
39. The fault outlined above has impacted on Y’s education and caused Mrs X distress, uncertainty and delayed her right of appeal to the SEND tribunal which she used.
40. 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 a change in its operational model to improve workload and capacity of its officers. I have therefore not recommended any further service improvements.

Y’s education and alternative provision

41. The Council was aware that Y was struggling at school since July 2024 when Y’s school informed the Council it might need to assess Y’s special educational needs. During this time Y remained on roll at their school. From January 2025 the Council was aware that Y was at risk of suspension or permanent exclusion and that their behaviour impacted the learning of their peers in school.
42. At this time Y remained on roll and the school put extra support in place by allocating a member of staff to look after them. There is no evidence, Y was not accessing full-time education at that stage. As a result, the Council’s Section 19 duty was not engaged.
43. In April 2025 the school put Y on a reduced timetable for one week and again in June 2025 for six weeks until the end of the summer term. Mrs X brought the reduced timetables to the Council’s attention when escalating her complaint. Once aware that Y was not accessing full-time education, the Council should have considered its Section 19 duty and maintained oversight of the reduced timetable to ensure it was suitable and met Y’s needs, and to determine whether further alternative provision was required. Not doing so was fault.
44. The Council also advised Mrs X to stay in contact with the school, stating that it remained the school’s responsibility to support Y. While the Council can delegate the arrangements for alternative provision to schools, the Council remains the body with overall responsibility. There is no evidence, the Council maintained any oversight of Y’s circumstances while they were placed on reduced timetables in April and in June 2025. This was fault and caused Mrs X uncertainty between April and July 2025.

Back to top

Action

45. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise to and make a payment of £1,100 to Mrs X and Y in recognition of the uncertainty and Mrs X’s delayed appeal rights to the Tribunal caused by both the Council’s delay in issuing Y’s EHC Plan and its failure to properly consider its Section 19 duty and to maintain oversight of its delegated responsibility. This payment includes the £500 remedy previously offered by the Council.

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.

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

Back to top

Decision

47. I have found fault and the Council agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman