Summary: Mrs X complained the Council did not issue her child’s Education Health and Care Plan within statutory timescales. Mrs X says this caused her child to miss out on educational provision and caused her unnecessary distress and financial strain. We find the Council at fault which caused injustice. The Council will provide an apology and a financial remedy to Mrs X to remedy the injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council did not issue her child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan within statutory timescales.
2. Mrs X says this caused her child to miss out on educational provision. She says it also caused her unnecessary distress and financial strain.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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)
5. 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.
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. Mrs X complains about matters which began in spring 2024. She brought her complaint to us in October 2025. As I have explained above, we cannot investigate late complaints unless there are good reasons. I consider it was reasonable for Mrs X to make her complaint sooner. For this reason, I will start my investigation in October 2024, which is 12 months before she brought her complaint to us.
11. The Council provided Mrs X with her right to appeal to the Tribunal in February 2025. As I have explained above, we cannot investigate matters which could be considered by the Tribunal unless we consider it is unreasonable for the person to use that right. Mrs X disagreed with the provision outlined in the EHC Plan and so I consider it was reasonable for her to use her right to appeal. For this reason, I have ended my investigation in February 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
14. 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

What should have happened

15. 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. 
16. 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 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).

What happened

17. Prior to October 2024, Y was on roll at a mainstream school. The Council decided to issue an EHC Plan, and the finalised EHC Plan was due.
18. In February 2025, the Council issued a final EHC Plan for Y. The Plan named the mainstream school Y was already attending and detailed techniques for staff to support Y to access education at the school. The Council provided Mrs X with her right to appeal.

Analysis

19. We expect councils to follow the statutory timescales set out in the law and the Code. We are likely to find fault where there are significant breaches of those timescales. The process from a request for an EHC assessment to the Council issuing a final Plan should take a maximum of 20 weeks. The Council should have issued the finalised EHC Plan before October 2024. It issued the final Plan in February 2025. This is a delay of more than five months. This is fault.
20. I cannot make a finding, even on a balance of probabilities, whether the delay caused Y to lose provision they would have otherwise accessed at school. I do consider the fault caused avoidable uncertainty to Mrs X and Y about whether its delay resulted in a loss of provision. This is injustice.
21. The delay also frustrated Mrs X’s right to appeal. However, I do not consider this caused any additional injustice because Mrs X did not use her right to appeal once she had received it.
22. The Council recently took service improvement action to address its EHC Plan delays as agreed with the Ombudsman in relation to another case. I do not consider further service improvement action is proportionate in this case.

Back to top

Action

23. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
1. Provide a written apology to Mrs X and Y for the unnecessary uncertainty caused by its delay of more than five months issuing the EHC Plan.
2. Make a payment of £250 to Mrs X to remedy the unnecessary uncertainty caused by the further five-month delay issuing the final Education Health and Care Plan.
24. 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. 
25. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

26. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman