Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council took 62 weeks to complete her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan and failed to communicate properly or handle her complaint in a timely way. We find the Council at fault for significant delay beyond the statutory 20-week timescale, poor communication, and delays in its complaint handling. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress, frustration, and time and trouble, and meant her child missed out on special educational provision for a period of approximately one and three quarter terms. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to complete her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales, instead taking 62 weeks.
2. She also complained about poor communication and complaint handling delays.
3. Miss X says this meant that Y missed out on special educational provision which has greatly impacted their education and caused Miss X distress.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
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 Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. 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

Timescales and process for EHC needs assessment 

9. 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).

Education, Health and Care Plan

10. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an 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. 

What happened

11. In February 2024, Mrs X asked the Council to carry out an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for her child, Y.
12. In April, the Council agreed to assess Y. It advised Mrs X that obtaining Educational Psychologist (EP) advice might delay the process.
13. In June and September, Mrs X emailed the Council for an update but received no response.
14. In late September, Mrs X informed the Council she would consider legal action if the delay continued.
15. In October, the Council received the EP advice.
16. Later that month, after further chasing, the Council told Mrs X it had decided to issue an EHC Plan and would send it by the end of November.
17. When no plan was received, Mrs X sought updates in December. She was told she would receive the draft plan the following week. After further chasing, she was informed the Plan would be completed after the festive period.
18. The Council issued the draft EHC Plan in January 2025.
19. Mrs X responded within three days, identifying errors and missing information. She received no reply and had to chase for a response. The Council eventually said her comments would be considered the following week.
20. In February 2025, after further chasing, the Council informed Mrs X the case had been reassigned, and her comments would be reviewed. Two weeks later, having received no update, Mrs X made a formal complaint about delays, poor communication, and errors in the draft Plan.
21. Mrs X did not receive a response to her complaint and had to chase several times. She also contacted her MP for assistance before the Council told her to forward the complaint directly to its complaints team, which she promptly did.
22. In March 2025, the Council said it had agreed Y’s school placement and would finalise the Plan by the end of the week. It did not meet this deadline.
23. In April 2025, after repeated further contact from Mrs X and her MP, the Council issued the final EHC Plan.
24. Later that month, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint, upholding it. It accepted there had been delays due to increased demand, staffing shortages and difficulties obtaining EP advice. It apologised for the poor communication and said it was taking steps to improve the service.
25. In May 2025, Mrs X escalated her complaint as she remained dissatisfied.
26. In July 2025, the Council issued its final complaint response. It reiterated its apology for the delays and the impact on Mrs X and Y.

My findings

Delay in EHC needs assessment

27. The Council accepts it did not complete Y’s EHC needs assessment within the statutory timescales.
28. The Council was required to issue Y’s final EHC Plan within 20 weeks of Mrs X’s request in February 2024. This meant the Plan should have been issued by July 2024. However, the Council did not issue the final EHC Plan until April 2025, a delay of approximately nine months. This was fault.
29. While part of the delay was attributable to difficulties obtaining Educational Psychologist advice, there were also avoidable delays in progressing and finalising the Plan.
30. The delay caused Mrs X avoidable distress and uncertainty. It also meant Y missed out on special educational provision they should have received between October 2024 and April 2025.
31. Where fault results in a loss of special educational provision, we will usually recommend a financial remedy. Taking account of Y’s special educational needs, age, and school attendance during the relevant period, I consider £700 a term to be an appropriate remedy.

Communication and complaint handling

32. The Council has acknowledged poor communication, apologised, and said it is recruiting additional staff. Its repeated failure to respond to correspondence and to meet its own stated deadlines was fault. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress, uncertainty, and significant time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
33. The Council’s published complaints procedure sets target timescales of 20 working days at stage one and 25 working days at stage two. It initially failed to recognise and properly log Mrs X’s complaint, which was fault. After the complaint was redirected to the correct team, the Council took 25 working days to respond at stage one and 49 working days at stage two. These delays were fault and caused further frustration and distress.

Back to top

Action

34. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• pay Miss X £300, to recognise the uncertainty and avoidable distress caused by the delay in obtaining an Educational Psychologists advice;
• pay Miss X £1,225, to recognise the loss of special educational provision for approximately one and three quarter terms between October 2024 and April 2025; and
• pay Miss X £400, to recognise the distress, uncertainty, and time and trouble pursuing the Council’s poor communication and complaint handling.
35. I have not recommended any further service improvements regarding delays within the Council’s SEND service. This is because the Council has recently provided evidence to the Ombudsman that it is taking appropriate steps to improve performance, and that waiting times are reducing as a result.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman