Summary: The Council was at fault for delays in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process. It delayed deciding whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales, caused by a 19 week delay in obtaining Educational Psychologist (EP) advice. It then further delayed issuing Y’s final EHC Plan by 2 weeks after it received the EP advice. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment in recognition of the injustice caused to Ms X and Y.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council delayed completing her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment. She says the Council failed to meet the statutory timeframes for issuing the EHC plan and did not handle her complaints about the matter appropriately. Ms X reported the delays left Y without support at school for many months during the 2024/2025 academic year, which negatively affected their education and caused avoidable distress to both Y and herself.
2. Ms X wanted the Council to issue the final EHC plan as soon as possible and to ensure Y has sufficient time to transition to their new placement in advance of the new academic year starting in September 2025.

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. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Ms 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

EHC Plan 

9. A child or young person 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. 

Timescales and process for EHC assessment 

10. 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);
• The council must consult with the parent or young person’s preferred educational placement who should respond within 15 calendar days.
  Content of an EHC Plan

11. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
• Section I: The name and / or type of educational placement 

The Council’s complaints policy

12. Under the Council’s corporate complaints policy, a request for a Stage 2 investigation may be declined where it simply repeats the original complaint without identifying any error in the Stage 1 investigation, provides no significant new or relevant information or where it falls outside the 12-month time limit without good reason.

What happened

13. Ms X has a child, Y with special educational needs who struggled in their mainstream school, school 1.
14. In July 2024 asked the Council to carry out an EHC needs assessment.
15. In August, the Council decided not to carry out an EHC needs assessment for Y, as it considered that Y’s needs could be met through the school’s existing resources and SEN provision. The Council informed Ms X of this decision and notified her of her right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal should she disagree with this decision.
16. Unhappy about this decision Ms X made a request for mediation to the Council. She also provided further evidence including a letter from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) prescribing Y medication for their ADHD diagnosis.
17. In November a mediation meeting took place which together with the additional evidence Ms X provided led to the Council reversing its decision and it decided to assess Y in early December 2024.
18. As part of the EHC needs assessment the Council requested advice from an Educational Psychologist (EP) in December. In line with statutory deadlines the EP advice should have been available within six weeks, so by the end of January 2025.
19. In March Ms X contacted the Council asking for an update on the needs assessment process. The Council responded the same day informing Ms X of the reason for the delay detailing the expected timescales of the EP assessment.
20. In May 2025 Ms X complained to the Council about the delay in completing Y’s needs assessment and the impact the continued delays from the Council had on Y’s education. She told the Council that school 1 funded two days of alternative provision (AP) for Y at another placement, school 2 as Y could not cope at school 1.
21. Later in May the EP assessed Y (20.05.25) and provided advice to the Council in early June. (06.06.25). This was a delay of 19 weeks.
22. In June the Council responded to Ms X’s complaint It acknowledged its statutory deadline to decide on Y’s needs assessment was in early February 2025. It apologised for the delay in completing Y’s needs assessment which it said was due to an unprecedented high demand for EHC needs assessments. It confirmed however it had now received the EP report and decided to issue an EHC Plan for Y. It also mentioned it was happy that school 1 organised AP for Y.
23. The following week the Council sent its decision letter to Ms X informing her of its decision to issue Y with an EHC Plan.
24. Unhappy about the Council’s response to her complaint, Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint procedure.
25. At the end of June (30/06/25), the Council issued Y’s draft EHC Plan.
26. A week later in early July Ms X complained to us.
27. In mid July 2025 the Council responded to Ms X’s escalation request and informed her it would not investigate the complaint at stage two. It said its investigation at stage one was proportionate and an investigation at stage two would not provide additional information for her.
28. At the end of July 2025 (25.07.25) the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan, naming school 2 in Section I.
29. As part of our enquiries Ms X told us school 2 was not one of her preferred schools and she believed her preferred school placement was not available due to the Council’s delay in completing the EHC needs assessment.
30. Y started attending school 2 in September 2025.

My findings

EHC needs assessment

31. 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.
32. After initially deciding not to assess Y, the Council reversed its decision and decided to assess Y in December 2024. In line with statutory timescales it should have decided whether to issue Y with an EHC Plan by the end of February and then issued the final EHC Plan by the end of March 2025.
33. The EP report should have been available to the Council by the end of January 2025 for it to have met the end of February deadline. The EP report was not complete until the start of June 2025 which was a delay of 19 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 the Council being unable to recruit enough EPs to meet demand and a backlog of cases.
34. However, the delay in obtaining EP advice was not the only reason for the delay in issuing Y’s final EHC Plan. With EP advice in hand the Council made its decision to issue an EHC Plan for Y in mid June 2025. The Council should then have issued Y’s final plan within four weeks of this date by mid-July 2025. It did not do so until late July 2025 which was a delay of a further two weeks which is fault.
35. In total the Council delayed completing the statutory process by 21 weeks or 4.5 months. This caused Ms X frustration and uncertainty.
36. Y’s EHC Plan was finalised at the end of July, within four weeks of the start of the summer holiday. As a result, Y started at school 2 in September 2025 at the beginning of the 25/26 academic year. The Council’s additional two-week delay, beyond the EP delay, did not result in any injustice to Y, as even if the final EHCP had been issued without that to week delay, it would have fallen within the school summer holiday period.
37. Ms X told us she was unhappy the Council did not name one of her preferred schools in Section I of the Plan. It was reasonable for Ms X to have used her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal if she disagreed with the placement named in Section I of Y’s Plan.
38. The Council has explained that it has taken significant steps to reduce the backlog in EHC needs assessments by expanding its SEND assessment team and commissioning over 1,000 private EP assessments in the past year to address increased demand and a national shortage of EPs. We will continue to monitor progress of this through our casework and so, further service improvement recommendations are not required at this time.

Complaint handling

39. Ms X received the Council’s response to her complaint, submitted in May 2025, in mid June 2025. In line with its complaint-handling policy, the Council should have responded within 20 working days (by early June). Instead, it did not issue its response until mid June – a week late. There is no evidence it informed Ms X it needed additional time. This one week delay was fault, however it is unlikely to have caused Ms X a significant enough injustice.
40. When Ms X asked for her complaint to move to stage two, the Council refused. It said the stage one investigation was proportionate and believed that a stage two investigation would not provide any new information. The Council made this decision in line with its complaint handling policy and this was not fault.

Back to top

Action

41. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following action:
1. Apologise to Ms X and make a payment of £450 in recognition of the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by both
1. the Council’s delay in issuing Y’s final EHC Plan, which was caused by delay in obtaining EP advice; and
2. delaying its response to her complaint at stage one.

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.

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

Back to top

Decision

43. I have found fault and made a recommendation for the Council to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman