Summary: Mr X complained about the Council’s delays with the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for his child. We found fault with the Council as it did not meet statutory timescales. This caused frustration and uncertainty for Mr X, and his child missed out on extra support for their needs. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for his child within statutory timescales. This caused the family significant frustration, distress and uncertainty, and he says his child missed out on support and provision they should have been entitled to during this time.

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. 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)
4. 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

5. 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)
6. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents. If the parent goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the Tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded.
7. In respect to this complaint, I cannot consider the Council’s initial decision where it refused to assess his child. Mr X used his appeal rights as the correct way to challenge this. I also cannot consider events after May 2025 (when the Council issued a final Education, Health and Care Plan) as Mr X also used his appeal rights here.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

11. 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. 
12. The Council is responsible for making sure that arrangements specified in the EHC Plan are put in place. We can look at complaints about this, such as where support set out in the EHC Plan has not been provided, or where there have been delays in the process.
13. 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 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.
• If a council refuses to carry out an EHC assessment but then concedes (or if the SEND Tribunal orders it to assess), then it must either decide not to issue an EHC Plan within 10 weeks or issue a final EHC Plan within 14 weeks of conceding/the order.
• 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. 

What happened – summary of key relevant events

14. At the end of July 2024, Mr X submitted a request for an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for his child (J).
15. In late September 2024, the Council refused to assess J. Mr X appealed this decision. In early December 2024, the Council conceded the appeal and agreed to assess. In early May 2025, the Council issued a final EHC Plan for J. Mr X appealed this.
16. In late June 2025, Mr X formally complained to the Council about the delays with the EHC needs assessment process and concerns about how it had affected J’s access to education.
17. In early July 2025, the Council responded at Stage 1.
• It accepted it failed to make the initial decision to not assess, or issue the final EHC Plan, within statutory timescales. It apologised for this. It said it had an overall SEND Improvement Plan to address the issues it had with delayed processes and meeting the volume of demand on its services.
• With J’s education, it noted they had over 95% attendance at school. The school had not raised concerns about meeting need and it was satisfied J was receiving education in a suitable setting. Mr X escalated his complaint.
18. At the end of July 2025, the Council responded at Stage 2. It maintained its findings from its previous response. It said there was no clear evidence to suggest its delays significantly impacted on J’s access to education.
19. In mid-August 2025, Mr X complained to us.

Analysis

20. The Council should have made its decision about whether to assess J within 6 weeks of Mr X’s request. It issued the refusal two weeks later than it should have. This is fault. Mr X used his appeal rights against this decision. As per Paragraphs 5-7, I cannot consider this period up until the Council conceded.
21. After the Council agreed to assess in December 2024, it should have issued the final EHC Plan within 14 weeks. In this case, by March 2025. It did not do this until May 2025. This resulted in an overall delay of over two months. This is fault. This caused Mr X frustration and uncertainty. It also delayed his appeal rights.
22. The Council said as J continued to attend school throughout this period, its delays with the EHC Plan did not impact on their access to education. I have concerns with this position. An EHC Plan enables provision to be put in place for a child’s Special Educational Needs (SEN). The school said J needed more targeted support to help their progress, which it could not offer without additional backing by the Council through an EHC Plan. J’s final EHC Plan in May 2025 included focused and individual support and provision for J’s needs. Therefore, I consider the Council’s fault with delays also caused injustice to J. They had to wait longer than necessary to receive a final EHC Plan which would have enabled provision to be put in place for their needs sooner. On balance, J missed out on extra support they would have been entitled to between March and May 2025, had the final EHC Plan been issued within statutory timeframes.

Back to top

Agreed Action

23. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council has agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X in writing for the injustice caused by the faults identified (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology);
• Pay Mr X a symbolic payment of £200 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay with the EHC needs assessment; and
• Pay Mr X a symbolic payment of £600 to recognise the missed provision for J caused by the delays with the final EHC Plan between March and May 2025. This could be used for J’s educational benefit.
24. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
25. The Council confirmed it had already been taking action to improve its SEN services and increase capacity to help manage the demands. In a previous recent decision with similar fault, we asked for a copy of its SEND Improvement Plan. The Council provided this in early 2026. I have therefore not made any further service improvements as we were satisfied with the evidence the Council provided. We will continue to monitor progress and improvements through our casework.

Back to top

Decision

26. 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