Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to meet the legal timescales when she requested an Education, Health and Care Needs Assessment and Plan for her son Y. We find the Council at fault for delays in issuing Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan that caused injustice. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council did not comply with the legal timescales when she requested an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Needs Assessment and Plan for her son Y.
2. She said the delay caused uncertainty and meant he missed education from September 2025 because a mainstream school could not meet his needs.
3. She would like the Council to acknowledge the education Y missed to put things right.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. 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.
8. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated the Council’s actions from November 2024 when Mrs X requested an EHC Needs Assessment. I have investigated until October 2025 when she complained to us.
10. I have considered whether there was ongoing injustice beyond that date. However I have not investigated new matters after Mrs X complained to us. This is because the law says the Council should usually be given a reasonable opportunity to investigate matters before we do. I have seen no reason to exercise my discretion to investigate new matters in this case.

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 an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
13. 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 found

Relevant law and guidance

14. A child or young person 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. 
15. 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 or the young person within six weeks. 
• If the 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).

16. As part of the assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). This includes psychological advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP). 
17. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against matters including a council’s description of a child or young person’s special educational needs, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified in their EHC Plan.
18. 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)
19. This means that if a child or young person is not attending school, and we decide the reason for non-attendance is linked to, or is a consequence of, a parent or young person’s disagreement about the special educational provision or the educational placement in the EHC Plan, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision.
20. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents or young person. 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.

What happened

21. This is a summary of key events. It is not a detailed chronology of everything that happened.
22. Y has special educational needs. In 2024 he was attending nursery.
23. On 13 November Mrs X requested an EHC Needs Assessment for Y. The Council agreed. It said it sent letters to professionals asking for the advice it needed.
24. The 20 week deadline for the Council to complete the process and issue an EHC Plan passed on 2 April 2025. The Council did not meet the deadline.
25. In July Mrs X complained to the Council because it had not issued an EHC Plan. The Council responded. It apologised for the delay. It said the delay was because of a shortage of EPs.
26. In August 2025 Mrs X escalated her complaint to stage two. The Council responded. It gave more information about the delays in securing advice from EPs. It said an EP would be allocated to Y at the end of September. It apologised again.
27. Mrs X said Y started the first year of his primary school in early September. She said he could not continue attending because the school could not meet his needs.
28. Mrs X complained to us in October.
29. The Council subsequently received advice from an EP. It issued Y’s EHC Plan on 16 April 2026.

Analysis

30. The Council should have completed the process and issued Y’s EHC Plan by 2 April 2025. It did not do so until 16 April 2026. This was fault.
31. I am satisfied the Council made appropriate efforts to secure EP advice in this case. This is because the Council said the delay was due to a significant recent increase in EHC Needs Assessment requests and a national EP workforce shortage. It also explained the steps it was taking to reduce delays.
32. Based on the evidence I have seen I find the fault was due to circumstances outside the Council’s control. For this reason I find the Council’s fault was one of service failure, not maladministration, as described in paragraph 5.
33. I have decided there is not enough evidence to find, even on the balance of probabilities, that the delay caused missed educational provision for Y. This is because I can not say what the outcome would have been had the Council issued the EHC Plan on time.
34. However I do find the fault caused significant injustice to Mrs X in the form of uncertainty and frustration at the delay.
35. I recommend the Council remedy the injustice by apologising and making a symbolic payment of £100 for each month of delay beyond the deadline. This is a total symbolic payment of £1,250 to acknowledge the twelve and a half months from 2 April 2025 to 16 April 2026.
36. Mrs X also said she disagreed with the school named in Y’s EHC Plan when it was issued in April 2026. She said he could not attend the school because it could not meet his needs.
37. I have decided the reason for non-attendance was linked to Mrs X’s disagreement with the educational placement named in the EHC Plan. She had the right to appeal to the Tribunal about that matter. I have decided it would have been reasonable for her to do so.
38. I therefore cannot investigate Y’s non-attendance after his EHC Plan was issued for the reasons explained in paragraphs 18 to 20.
39. I have decided not to make any service improvement recommendations in this case. This is because the Council provided information about its work to improve its service to reduce similar fault and injustice to others in the future.

Back to top

Action

40. Within four weeks of the date of this final decision the Council has agreed to:
1. Apologise for the uncertainty and frustration caused by the delay. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £1,250 to Mrs X to acknowledge the injustice.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault in the form of service failure for the Council’s delay in issuing the Education, Health and Care Plan causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman