Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not provide appropriate education to her daughter, Y, and that it failed to adhere to statutory timescales linked to assessment and review processes related to her special educational needs. We found fault because the Council took too long to issue Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. It also took too long to arrange alternative education for her, failed to review her plan within the required timeframe and failed to review the alternative education in place. This caused Mrs X avoidable distress and meant Y missed out on education she should have received. To remedy the injustice caused, the Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X and share guidance with relevant staff.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her daughter, Y’s, education. Specifically, she complains:
• it took too long to complete the needs assessment for her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan;
• it took too long to organise alternative education provision (AP) when Y could no longer attend school;
• AP organised was not equivalent to full time or appropriate for her needs and education; and
• it was too slow to respond to an emergency annual review of Y’s EHC Plan.
2. Mrs X says this caused her avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. She also says Y missed out on education she should have received.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
5. 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.
6. 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)
7. 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

8. My investigation begins when Y’s EHC needs assessment request was made in November 2023. This is more than 12 months back from when Mrs X brought her complaint to us. However, in the circumstances of this complaint, I am satisfied it is appropriate to exercise discretion to investigate back to when the request was first made.
9. Mrs X had the right to appeal Y’s EHC Plan to the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Tribunal (the Tribunal) but did not do so as School A agreed to an early review of Y’s EHC Plan. I am therefore satisfied I can investigate matters related to her education after the EHC Plan was issued and that it was not unreasonable for Mrs X not to have used her right of appeal to the Tribunal.
10. My investigation ends when Mrs X brought her complaint to us in mid-August 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mrs X and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I have taken any comments received into consideration before reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Timescales and process for EHC assessment 

13. An EHC Plan is a document which sets out a child’s special educational needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
14. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs (SEN) and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ 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.
15. If a 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). Section F of the EHC Plan sets out the provision the child should receive and who should deliver it.

EHC Plan reviews

16. Following a review meeting, a council must issue a decision to either amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
17. Where a council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.

EHC Plan delivery

18. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in Section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement.

Section 19 alternative education duty

19. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that councils must arrange suitable AP when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child. The AP must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have. We refer to this as S19 or AP.

Arranging person centred provision

20. If the council decides it must arrange AP, it needs to arrange provision based on the child’s individual needs. It should also have a review process to ensure the provision remains in the child’s best interests. Councils can decide a child cannot cope with full-time provision, especially where the reason for their non-attendance is medical. When this happens, the Council should provide reasons for the amount of provision it arranges.
21. If a child has an EHC Plan the council also has an ongoing duty to arrange the support guaranteed by the Plan. However, this might not always be possible, such as where the SEN support is designed for the child’s normal classroom setting.
22. Councils should also think about the steps needed to reintegrate the child back into their usual school setting, through ongoing conversations with relevant professionals and the parents.

What happened

23. I have set out below a summary of the key events. This is not meant to show everything that happened.
24. In the academic year 2023-24, Y was in her final year at primary school.
25. Y was declared medically unfit to attend school in October 2023 with a clinical psychologist’s report saying she needed a period of time away from school. The report said Y had high levels of anxiety which presented in OCD type activities and worries.
26. Y did not attend primary school in her final year there and instead accessed education through tutoring arranged under S19. In September 2024, she moved to a local secondary school, School A.

EHC Plan

27. In mid-November 2023, Y’s school sent the Council a request for an EHC needs assessment (the assessment) for her.
28. On 22 December 2023, the Council decided it would not carry out the assessment. It considered not enough evidence of Y’s needs had been provided and that a graduated response was needed. It sent Mrs X a decision letter in the post to advise of this and her right to appeal the decision to the Tribunal. The letter was addressed to a street of the same name in a different part of the town. This meant part of the address and part of the postcode were incorrect.
29. In mid-January 2024, the Council was made aware the mistake regarding the incorrect address and that Mrs X had therefore had no request for her input or information about the Council’s decision on the assessment. The address had been correctly inputted by Y’s primary school.
30. After some internal communications, the Council confirmed to Mrs X that most panel decisions were based on school evidence. Schools needed to show what approaches they had already tried but she could contact the caseworker to advise that she had not had the chance put her own information forward.
31. After further discussions between Mrs X and the Council, it agreed in late April 2024 to carry out the assessment on Y. As part of this, it asked for professional advice from a range of people and services to inform its decision.
32. The Council received a report from an Educational Psychologist (EP) at the end of October 2024 and made the decision to issue an EHC Plan in mid-November 2024. It issued a draft plan in mid-December and the first final plan in late February 2025.
33. Y’s EHC Plan named School A where she was already on roll.
34. Y’s EHC Plan said her main area of need was communication and interaction. It set out 17.5 hours per week of support. Section F listed a variety of approaches and suggestions to support Y in her communication. This included adapting her work environment to aid her ability to complete tasks and offering support to manage change. This was to combat her high level of anxiety related to school and the school environment.

Alternative education provision

35. When Y moved from primary to secondary education in September 2024, she was initially successful in attending School A. However, she soon found this more difficult and her attendance level dropped. She moved to a reduced timetable.
36. At the end of January 2025, School A sent the Council an S19 request. The Council completed an S19 assessment in mid-March 2025 and agreed to provide Y with some AP from 25 March 2025 onwards.
37. Mrs X says that she had heard no more about any AP being organised so contacted the Council to chase on 2 May 2025.
38. After further discussions, online tutoring began at the beginning of June 2025 after the May half term holidays.
39. The Council scheduled online tutoring for two hours per day on three days per week. Y’s attendance at School A was at around 20% meaning she was still attending for the equivalent of one day per week. Tutoring was for Maths and English to be delivered online.

EHC Plan review

40. After Y’s EHC Plan was issued late in February 2025, an early annual review of the plan was held on 9 April 2025.
41. As part of her complaint to the Council, Mrs X said it had not given her the outcome of the review. In its stage two response sent to Mrs X on 5 August 2025, the Council apologised for the delay in the officer making a decision. It said the recommendations from the review had been considered and further discussion was needed about funding. It promised to issue a decision no later than 8 August 2025.
42. Mrs X says she only heard more about this from the Council in early 2026.

Complaints

43. Mrs X made her initial complaint to the Council late in March 2025, around the time it had issued Y’s EHC Plan. The Council sent its stage one response late in May 2025. It upheld Mrs X’s complaint about the time taken to issue Y’s EHC Plan. It also upheld Mrs X’s complaint about AP for Y as the Council had taken ‘an extended amount of time’ to put tuition in place after it was agreed in March 2025.
44. Unhappy with the response, Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s process. She added in her unhappiness about delays in finalising a review of Y’s EHC Plan and highlighted the impact of the Council’s actions on the family.
45. The Council sent its final stage two response at the beginning of August 2025. It apologised again for the delay in finalising the assessment for Y’s EHC Plan. The Council added more information to the delays about organising AP for Y. It also upheld Mrs X’s complaint about delays finalising Y’s EHC Plan review and committed to issuing the decision by 8 August 2025. The Council said it was taking significant steps to increase capacity within its SEN services and apologised for the experience the family had.
46. Mrs X then brought her complaint to us.

Analysis

Y’s EHC Plan needs assessment

47. Statutory guidance states the process for the assessment and any eventual EHC Plan being issued should take no more than 20 weeks from start to finish. In the circumstances of this complaint, this period cannot be counted as one continuous period of time.
48. Mrs X complained the Council had refused to engage when it became clear the initial assessment paperwork and decision had gone to the wrong address late in 2023. She said the Council had instead insisted she use the mediation and appeal route and was unhappy as she felt the paperwork being sent to the wrong address had led to unnecessary delays.
49. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had not insisted Mrs Y used the appeal route and that it gathered more information for the file before taking Y’s case to panel and agreeing to assess Y. It said it did so under normal reconsideration and not via a new application or appeal route.
50. Evidence shows the Council initially said the appeal route may need to be taken as a decision not to assess had been made. This came with a right to appeal the decision at the SEND Tribunal. I find no fault in the Council’s initial actions here based on the evidence it had to hand at the time and cannot hold it responsible for using the incorrect address.
51. The Council then considered the circumstances of the case and agreed to re-visit the case before later agreeing to assess. I find no fault in the Council’s actions here in terms of agreeing to look at the file again.
52. I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, it is more likely than not the Council’s decision to look at the file again and come to a reconsidered decision took less time than the process of any Tribunal appeal to challenge the decision would have taken. On this basis, I do not consider the time taken to reconsider from January to April 2024 has caused Mrs X any injustice.
53. When the Council made its decision to assess on 26 April 2024, it should have issued Y’s EHC Plan in 14 weeks. In the circumstances of this complaint, the time of the school summer holidays needs to be excluded from the overall deadline. This meant Y’s EHC Plan should have been issued by 16 September 2024. Instead, it was issued towards the end of February 2025 and a little over five months late.
54. Much of this is attributable to the delay in the Council receiving Y’s EP report as part of the assessment process. The Council should have received it by 7 June 2024, but did not receive it until the end of October 2024
55. Not issuing Y’s plan on time was fault. It caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mrs X and Y as to what the plan would set out as Y’s provision. The Ombudsman recognises the national picture of EP shortages and recommends a symbolic remedy of £100 per month for EHC Plan delays caused by late EP reports. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Alternative provision

56. In my enquiries, I asked the Council what action it took when it knew Y was struggling to attend school and what consideration it had given to its S19 duties. The Council confirmed that it had agreed to provide some AP to Y under its S19 duties on 25 March 2025 and that Y was attending School A for 20% of the school week.
57. The Council advised me there was a delay in organising tutoring after this provision had been agreed due to a miscommunication between departments. The Council’s response to me states tutoring did not begin until September 2025, Mrs X says it started in June 2025. I am satisfied the tutoring began in June 2025.
58. Mrs X says face to face tutoring would have been better for Y. The Council said it was unsure why Y had not been offered this. Mrs X was unhappy Y was not offered English and Science as she did not need help in Maths. The Council said English and Maths were its standard offer as they were core subjects and it knew Y was accessing some education at school.
59. There is conflicting evidence about how much tutoring was delivered to Y. Council documents show this was scheduled to be two hours per day on three days per week. Mrs X says this has never been delivered to Y. Mrs X said Y has only ever received two hours per week but that when she recently enquired with tutors they were being paid for four hours but delivering two.
60. The delay in beginning Y’s AP also meant that the scheduled AP review in May 2025 did not take place. I have seen no evidence of a review taking place after tutoring began in June 2025 and before the end of the summer term in July. There is no evidence the Council satisfied itself the tutoring was meeting Y’s needs. There is no evidence it had satisfied itself tutoring provided her with an education equivalent to full time, as S19 duties say it should.
61. The Council failed to provide any AP to Y from 25 March 2025 to 23 May 2025. It then provided some AP to Y from 2 June 2025 to the end of term on 21 July 2025.
62. Overall, I am satisfied the Council’s actions are fault. They show it lacked appropriate oversight of what was being delivered when, whether Y’s education was equivalent to full time overall, whether the standard offer of Maths and English was appropriate for her and whether face to face tutoring would have been a more appropriate option. This caused avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty to Mrs X. It also meant Y did not have access to the education she should have had and there was uncertainty as to whether she could have accessed more provision or a different style of provision if this had been reviewed by the Council. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Emergency review of Y’s EHC Plan

63. The Council’s stage two response apologised and acknowledged the delay in issuing the Council’s decision about Y’s EHC Plan review. It promised to issue the decision by 8 August 2025.
64. Mrs X said this did not happen and she only received information about the decision early in 2026.
65. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the review decision had been delayed due to Y’s key worker having a high caseload. The Council said it had made the decision to amend Y’s EHC Plan in August 2025. It said the keyworker failed to update Mrs X with the exact details of what was meant to be amended.
66. Where a council is intending to amend an EHC Plan, it should notify the parents of the decision to amend and also what the proposed changes are within four weeks of the review meeting. It should complete the process by issuing the updated EHC Plan within 12 weeks of the review meeting and in this case by 2 July 2025. Not only did the Council fail to do all of this when it should have done, it also failed to do this after a commitment to Mrs X made in its stage two complaint response.
67. All of this was fault. Mrs X experienced avoidable delays and promises which were not fulfilled. This caused her avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. It also delayed her right of appeal to the Tribunal. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Council oversight of EHC Plans

68. In my enquiries, I asked the Council how much of Y’s Section F provision had been delivered from when her EHC Plan was finalised in February 2025 to the end of the summer term 2025.
69. The Council repeated what education she was having delivered via the tutoring and that Y was on roll at school, but said it did not know what Section F provision had been delivered to her. It explained how it would normally proceed if someone complained provision in the EHC Plan was not being delivered.
70. We do not expect councils to have a watching brief over Section F of the plan being delivered, but we do expect it has processes in place to check on provision in a new or amended plan.
71. The Council had no processes to check Section F provision is being delivered as specified. As with Y, it also had no oversight as to how much, if any, of her Section F provision was delivered either at school or through its online tutoring.
72. The Council has a non-delegable duty to deliver Section F provision as specified in an EHC Plan. I acknowledge that Y’s EHC Plan in place at the time was designed to be delivered at School A and that Y was attending a limited amount of time there. However, on the balance of probabilities and considering the overall lack of oversight in this case, I am satisfied it is more likely than not that Y did not receive the provision set out in her EHC Plan through either School A, tutoring or a combination of both. This was fault. It caused Mrs X avoidable distress, frustration and uncertainty. It also meant Y did not receive the support she was due. I have made a recommendation below to remedy this injustice.

Recommendations

73. The Council has agreed to recent recommendations in similar but unrelated cases and linked to its handling of EHC related issues, EP delays and ensuring Section F provision is delivered. I will therefore make no further recommendation related to this.
74. I have made a service improvement recommendation below linked to its oversight of S19 duties and AP.

Back to top

Agreed action

75. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults I have identified, the Council will take the following action within four weeks of the date of my final decision:
• apologise to Mrs X for the identified injustice;
• make a symbolic payment to Mrs X of £500 to recognise the delay in issuing Y’s EHC Plan because of the EP delay at a rate of £100 per month for five months of delay;
• make a symbolic payment of £1700 to acknowledge the injustice caused by the lack of Section F provision from February 2025 to July 2025, the lack of AP from March to May 2025 and the partial AP from June to July 2025; and
• share our good practice guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to identify and arrange alternative educational provision: Supporting children out of school (October 2025) with relevant officers and managers.
76. The apology written should be in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies on making an effective apology.
77. Payments made are in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.
78. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

79. I have now completed my investigation. I uphold this complaint with a finding of fault causing an injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman