Summary: Miss X complained the Council has failed to complete the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process and issue the final EHC Plan for her son, Y, within statutory timescales. There was fault by the Council. The Council has failed to issue Y’s final EHC Plan within statutory timescales and its communication was poor. As a result, Miss X has suffered distress, frustration, and a delayed right of appeal. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments, and issue Y’s final EHC Plan.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council has failed to complete the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and issue the final EHC Plan, for her son, who I will refer to as Y, within statutory timescales. She also complains the Council’s communication and data-handling has been poor.
2. As a result, Miss X says she and Y have suffered distress and frustration. She also says Y has missed out on specialist provision and support he would have had in place sooner but for the delays, which has impacted his learning and ability to engage effectively at school.
3. Miss X would like the Council to:
• apologise;
• pay a financial remedy;
• issue the final EHC Plan without further delay; and
• improve its services.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
8. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
9. 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)
10. 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

11. I have investigated matters in this case from mid-to-late July 2024, when Y’s school requested an EHC Plan. Miss X brought the complaint to us in October 2025, meaning complaints about events that took place before October 2024 have been made late. However, I have exercised discretion to consider matters from mid-to-late July 2024, as Miss X had been attempting to resolve matters with the Council first. It is also sensible to investigate from this point, as it marks the start of the EHC needs assessment process.
12. I have not investigated any complaint about the Council’s data-handling or its handling of a subject access request (SAR) Miss X submitted to it. This is because the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is best placed to consider complaints about such matters.
13. I have not investigated any complaint about the contents of Y’s draft EHC Plan. This is because the EHC Plan is not yet finalised, and once it is finalised, Miss X will have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal if she disagrees with the contents of sections B, F, and/or I of the EHC Plan. We cannot consider matters which can be considered through an appeal to the SEND Tribunal, as outlined in paragraph 6.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
15. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
16. Mrs 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

EHC Plan 

17. 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. 

Timescales and process for EHC assessment 

18. 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: 

• 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. 
• 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).

Back to top

What happened

19. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
20. Y’s school submitted a request for an EHC Plan to the Council in mid-to-late July 2024. The Council agreed to carry out an EHC needs assessment for Y at the end of August 2024. It says there were delays during the assessment process due to capacity issues and being unable to allocate an educational psychologist (EP).
21. The EP report was completed at the end of September 2025. The Council made its decision not to issue an EHC Plan for Y in late November 2025. Following mediation in January 2026, the Council overturned its initial decision, and it made its decision to issue an EHC Plan for Y in early February 2026. It issued Y’s draft EHC Plan a month later, in early March 2026. The Council has not yet issued a final EHC Plan for Y.
22. Miss X complained to the Council throughout the process about the delays in it completing the EHC needs assessment and issuing an EHC Plan for Y. She also complained about administrative errors, the Council’s handling of a SAR she had made, and its poor communication.
23. The Council has apologised to Miss X for the delays and has paid a financial remedy of £500 to acknowledge this. The Council also told Miss X it would put in place service improvements including:
• A review of staffing levels and resource allocation procedures, including considering appointing additional EPs.
• Enhanced monitoring and a manager review of the actions taken by staff involved in the case to identify areas for improvement.
• An evaluation of its communication practices.

Back to top

Analysis

24. The Council has acknowledged, and it is clear from the documentation, there has been significant delays in this case. The statutory timescale for completing an EHC needs assessment and issuing a final EHC Plan is 20 weeks. In this case, the process began in mid-to-late July 2024, when Y’s school submitted its request for an EHC Plan for him. Although the Council initially refused to issue an EHC Plan for Y, this decision was made in late November 2025, so it had already significantly exceeded the statutory timeframe by this point. Also, mediation does not pause the statutory clock, so the 20-week deadline still applied. So, the Council should have issued Y’s final EHC Plan just before mid-December 2024. The Council has not yet issued Y’s final EHC Plan. This is a delay of roughly 17 months, and ongoing.
25. I recognise Miss X says Y has missed out on specialist provision and support he would have had in place sooner but for the delays. As the Council has not yet issued Y’s final EHC Plan, we cannot speculate what support Y has missed out on and what provision and support he would have had in place sooner but for the delays. Therefore, it is premature for us to recommend any remedy for potential missed provision.
26. However, we take the view that councils must abide by the statutory and legislative requirements under the SEN legislation and guidance. The Council’s failure to meet the required timescale here is fault and has caused Miss X distress and frustration. The wait for the final EHC Plan has delayed, and continues to delay, Miss X’s right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal until the Council issues the final EHC Plan. I have made a recommendation to reflect this.
27. The Council’s communication with Miss X has also been poor. I have seen evidence of Miss X chasing updates and correspondence from the Council; administrative errors within the Council’s correspondence such as incorrect names; and continued poor communication with Miss X despite the Council’s assurance this would improve. Miss X was already under significant pressure due to the delays in the process, and the Council’s poor communication caused additional frustration. I have made a recommendation to reflect this.
28. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
29. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the council had not occurred.
30. We recognise the national shortage of EPs available to complete reports for EHC needs assessments, leading to delays in the rest of the EHC Plan process. Our current approach is to remedy the injustice caused by this by recommending a symbolic payment of £100 per month from the date the final EHC Plan should have been issued, to the date the Council received the EP report. I have made a recommendation to reflect this. I have also made a recommendation for the continued delay after this period, to remedy the ongoing injustice to Miss X and her delayed right of appeal.
31. I have not recommended the Council apologise to Miss X, as it has already done so in its complaint response which is appropriate. I have also not made service improvement recommendations in this case. This is because we have already made service improvement recommendations to the Council in other cases where we have identified similar failings. Further, as a result of earlier complaints made to us, the Council has provided us with an updated copy of its SEND improvement plan. We will continue to monitor this progress through our casework and will make further service improvement recommendations where appropriate.

Back to top

Action

32. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Miss X by the fault I have identified, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Pay Miss X £450 for the injustice caused by the EP related delays in the EHC needs assessment process. This has been calculated at £100 per month of delay, from just before mid-December 2024 when the final EHC Plan should have been issued, to the end of September 2025 when the Council received the EP report, as outlined in paragraph 30. This equates to £950, but Miss X says the Council has already paid her £500 to acknowledge the injustice caused by the delays. I have therefore deducted the £500 already paid, so as not to double remedy the injustice.
• Pay Miss X £500 for the distress and delayed right of appeal caused by the Council’s remaining delay in issuing Y’s EHC Plan.
• Pay Miss X £300 for the frustration caused by the Council’s poor communication as outlined in paragraph 27.
• Issue the final EHC Plan within four weeks of Miss X providing the Council with the outstanding supporting evidence it says it requires. The Council should not however allow matters to continue to drift. If Miss X does not provide the outstanding evidence within six weeks, it should proceed, draw matters to a conclusion and issue the final EHC Plan. When it issues the final EHC Plan, the Council should inform Miss X of her right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal.
33. Once the Council has issued the final EHC Plan, within four weeks of that date, the Council should identify what provision Y would have had sooner but for the delay, in accordance with his final EHC Plan. The Council should offer a remedy to Miss X for any identified missed provision, in line with our guidance on remedies.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I uphold Miss X’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman