Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child within statutory timeframes. We found the Council at fault for significant delays, causing significant frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a symbolic to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her child within statutory timeframes. This caused the family significant frustration, distress and uncertainty about their education during this prolonged period.

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. 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 LGSCO [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
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 discussed the complaint with Ms X and considered her views.
8. I considered the Council’s responses to Ms X’s formal complaint, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Ms 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

10. 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.
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. It says the process “must be carried out in a timely manner”. Steps must be completed as soon as practicable. As part of the assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND 2014 Regulations, Regulation 6(1)). This includes advice from an Educational Psychologist (EP). Those consulted have six weeks to provide the advice.
12. Parents have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. This is only engaged once a decision not to assess or issue a plan has been made or a final EHC plan has been issued.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

13. In mid-March 2024, Ms X submitted an Education, Health, and Care (EHC) needs assessment request to the Council for her child (Y).
14. In mid-April 2024, the Council agreed to assess Y. In early August 2024, the Council received the Educational Psychologist (EP) report. In early September 2024, the Council agreed to issue an EHC Plan for Y.
15. In mid-December 2024, the Council sent Ms X a draft EHC Plan.
16. In mid-March 2025, Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council about the delays with the final EHC Plan, and it had missed statutory timeframes.
17. In late March 2025, the Council sent Ms X its complaint response. It apologised for its delays and for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the process. The Council recognised it had significantly high demand on its SEND service, as well as staff sickness impacting on its ability to meet timescales. It was taking steps to continue in improving its service.
18. At the end of April 2025, the Council issued a final EHC Plan for Y. This gave Ms X her appeal rights, which she used.
19. In August 2025, Ms X complained to us.

Analysis

20. The Council received the request for the EHC needs assessment in mid-March 2024. If a council decides to issue an EHC Plan, it should do this within 20 weeks of a request. In this case, the Council should have done this by the start of August 2024. It did not issue a final EHC Plan until late April 2025. This is a significant overall delay of around nine months.
21. It appears the first two months of delay was down to the Council not receiving advice from an EP until August 2024. We recognise there is a national shortage of EPs affecting many areas. We describe this as fault in the form of service failure (see Paragraph 3). After receiving this, we would expect the Council to follow statutory timescales in the Code to issue a final EHC Plan. This is usually up to eight weeks after the EP report which means it could have issued it by the end of September 2024. The Council then delayed issuing a final EHC Plan which took a further seven months. This is fault by maladministration.
22. The faults with delays caused significant frustration and uncertainty for Ms X and Y as they had to wait notably longer than necessary to receive a final EHC Plan. This also significantly delayed Ms X’s right to appeal, which is further injustice.
23. In her complaint to us, Ms X raised concerns with what the Council had included in the EHC Plan. This is not something we can consider (see Paragraph 4). Ms X used her appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal which was the correct way to challenge this.

Back to top

Agreed Action

24. 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 Ms X and Y in writing (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the faults identified and pay a symbolic payment of £700 to recognise the injustice.
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
26. We have identified similar fault in many previous decisions with the Council. It has been undergoing a significant transformation programme in its SEND service since 2025. Given this, the Council has been subject to ongoing monitoring around progress, and therefore I do not consider it necessary to recommend any further improvements as we are already overseeing this.

Back to top

Decision

27. 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