Summary: Miss X complained that the Council delayed finalising her son’s Education, Health and Care plan. We have found the Council was at fault. It caused a delay of six months. This meant Miss X’s son missed out on some support he needed and her right to appeal was frustrated. The Council has agreed to take action to address their injustice.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that the Council delayed finalising her son, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. She says this has placed stress on her and her son whilst she waited for the assessment to be carried out.

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

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant guidance.
6. Miss 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

Statutory Guidance

7. A child with special educational needs may have an EHC plan. This document describes the arrangements which should be made to meet the child’s needs.
8. Statutory government guidance (the ‘SEND code of practice’) says that, within six weeks of receiving a request for an EHC needs assessment, the council must write to the child’s parent and tell them whether it will do an assessment.
9. If the council goes on to issue an EHC plan, the whole process (from the assessment request to the plan being issued) must take no more than 20 weeks.

What happened

10. In January 2025, Miss X asked the Council to carry out an EHC needs assessment for Y.
11. By early May 2025, the assessment had not been completed, so Miss X made a formal complaint.
12. In early June 2025, the Council responded. It said a shortage of educational psychologists meant it could not meet the statutory timeframe. It expected to finish the assessment by the end of July 2025 and upheld her complaint.
13. Miss X was not satisfied and escalated her complaint. She said staff shortages should not delay her son’s assessment.
14. In August 2025, the Council acknowledged the delay. It said it had tried to recruit permanent and independent educational psychologists but had not been successful. It was seeking a short-term contract with an external provider to complete the assessment, with a decision expected that month.
15. The Council issued a draft EHC plan in November 2025 and finalised it in December 2025.

My findings

16. The statutory timescale for issuing EHC plans is clear and non-negotiable. The Council should have issued Y’s plan by May 2025. The plan was issued in December 2025. This is fault.
17. The Council has explained the reason for the delay. I accept that there have been national problems recruiting educational psychologists to assess children’s special educational needs. However, this does not change the statutory timescale, or the injustice caused to Miss X and Y from the delay.
18. It is likely that, because of the delay in his EHC plan, Y will have missed out on some support, and Miss X experienced inconvenience (not least from feeling she had to make a complaint to the Council and, subsequently, to us). Her right to appeal the EHC plan was also frustrated.

Back to top

Action

19. Within four weeks, the Council has agreed to:
• Write to Miss X, apologising for the delay in issuing Y’s EHC plan. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council will consider this guidance when writing to Miss X.
• Make a symbolic payment of £600 to Miss X, on Y’s behalf, to recognise the Council’s delay beyond the statutory timeframe in finalising the EHC plan and frustrating Miss X’s right of appeal.
20. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things.

Back to top

Decision

21. The Council was at fault. This caused injustice to Miss X and Y, which the Council will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman