Summary: Miss X complained about the Council’s delays and decisions it made in the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her child. We found fault with the Council with its failure to meet statutory timeframes and its poor communication with her. This caused Miss X significant frustration and distress. The Council agreed to apologise and pay a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the Council's actions and handling of the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her child, including its decisions, poor communication and delays. She says this caused her significant frustration, mental distress, with uncertainty for her child's needs and provision, and financial costs as she sought legal support from an advocate against the Council.

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to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the Tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded.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. The same restrictions apply where someone had a right of appeal to the Tribunal and it was reasonable for them to have used that right.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views and information she provided.
9. I considered the information the Council provided and its complaint responses, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss 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. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s:

• decision not to carry out an EHC needs assessment;
• description of a child’s SEN (Section B), the special educational provision specified for a child needs (Section F), the school or placement (Section I).

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 information about their right to appeal to the Tribunal.
• If a council refuses to carry out an EHC needs assessment but then concedes, 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.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

14. The chronology below gives an overview of key events in this case. It is not intended to be an exhaustive or detailed account of everything that happened.
15. Miss X’s child (D) has significant and complex special needs and disabilities, along with medical conditions.
16. In March 2024, Miss X submitted an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment request for D. Weeks later, the Council refused to assess D. Miss X appealed this decision. In late July 2024, the Council conceded and agreed to assess D.
17. In early November 2024, the Council sent a draft EHC Plan to Miss X. Miss X, through her advocate, sent her comments and requested amendments to the Council. The Council acknowledged these.
18. In March 2025, Miss X’s advocate chased the Council for an update and did not get a response. The Council then issued a final EHC Plan for D, with a letter outlining her appeal rights if she disagreed with it.
19. Miss X responded and said the final EHC Plan the Council issued was incorrect. She said it was simply the same as the draft Plan it sent in November 2024, it had not included her amendments, and it was not issued by D’s caseworker.
20. In April 2025, Miss X’s advocate sent a Pre-Action Protocol (PAP) letter to the Council, outlining the Council’s failure to finalise the EHC Plan in statutory timescales and it failed to consider parental representations. The Council did not respond in a timely manner.
21. In June 2025, Miss X formally complained to the Council about its initial refusal to assess D, poor communication, delays in sending a draft EHC Plan, her dissatisfaction with the final EHC Plan and its response to her PAP letter. She wanted the Council to issue a finalised EHC Plan with her amendments and fully reimburse her advocate’s fees.
22. In July 2025, the Council responded at Stage 1. It apologised for her experience and said it was working on reducing delays. It was now considering her amendments and offered £250 as a remedy. Miss X escalated her complaint. She did not accept the remedy, and it had also closed her initial complaint without her consent or informing her.
23. In August 2025, the Council responded at Stage 2. It apologised and said delays with the EHC Plan were down to staff issues in its SEND team. It carried out service improvements to reduce gaps in communication when staff went on prolonged leave and issued reminders to staff to respond to parents in a timely manner. It generally maintained its findings from its previous response. It was continuing to correspond with her to progress an amended final EHC Plan. Miss X then complained to us.

Events after Miss X’s complaint to us

24. In October 2025, the Council issued an amended final EHC Plan for D. Miss X said to me she was satisfied with it and D has attended a specialist placement since September 2025.

Analysis

25. The Council initially refused to assess D and made this decision within six weeks of Miss X’s EHC needs assessment request, which is within statutory timeframes. Miss X used her appeal rights against this. As per Paragraphs 5-7, I cannot consider or make findings on this decision or events during this period up until the Council conceded.
26. After the Council agreed to assess in late July 2024, it should have issued the final EHC Plan within 14 weeks. In this case, by the start of November 2024. It did not do this until March 2025. This resulted in an overall delay of around 4 and a half months. This is fault. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration and distress as she had to wait notably longer than necessary to receive a final EHC Plan.
27. I recognise in Miss X’s view, the March 2025 document was not a final EHC Plan as the Council did not include her parental amendments. Regardless, it was a legally binding document at that point, whether Miss X agreed with it or not. The Council issued it as a formal final EHC Plan with an accompanying letter outlining her rights to appeal Sections B, F or I. Miss X disagreed with these sections but did not appeal. It is not our role to decide what should be included in an EHC Plan. These were matters a Tribunal could have decided.
28. I appreciate Miss X tried to contact the Council after it issued the final EHC Plan with little success and she later sent the Council a PAP letter to which the Council responded. It then worked with her later to consider an amended final EHC Plan, issued in October 2025. This was her choice to do it this way. But in our view, appeal rights were available at the point of the March 2025 final EHC Plan, and it would have been reasonable for her to use these in these circumstances. Therefore, the restrictions in Paragraph 5-7 apply in this period too, meaning I cannot consider Miss X’s concerns after the first final EHC Plan.
29. Considering the above, I have considered the injustice with the delays in the EHC needs assessment process up until March 2025. I also consider the Council was at fault for its overall poor communication with Miss X and some poor complaint handling. There were many occasions where she had to repeatedly chase for responses and the Council failed to keep her properly updated. This caused her avoidable frustration and distress.
30. The Council recognised its shortcomings and offered a remedy of £250. This is positive; however, I do not consider this is sufficient to remedy the injustice here. I recommended an amended amount below.
31. Miss X also engaged the services of a legal advocate, and she said this was due to the Council’s failures to make correct decisions throughout the EHC needs assessment process. She wanted reimbursement for the legal fees incurred. We do not normally consider councils should meet such costs as free advice and support is widely available through independent SEN advice providers and the Government’s intention is that families should not need legal advice to use the Tribunal process. She exercised a personal preference to use a legal advocate, and while I appreciate Miss X felt she had no choice, I do not consider her circumstances so exceptional to go against our general position on these matters.

Back to top

Agreed Action

32. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X in writing (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the faults identified; and
• Pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £550 total to recognise her significant frustration, distress and uncertainty caused by the faults identified.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
34. The Council has taken steps to improve its services with some issues raised in Miss X’s complaint. I have also noted in a recent previous decision with similar fault, we made a recommendation for the Council to ensure it makes its staff aware they must comply with timescales under statutory guidance and the Code when they are completing an EHC needs assessment. Considering this, it is not necessary to repeat or recommend further service improvements for now. We will continue to monitor this through our casework.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman