Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council significantly delayed completing her child's EHC (Education, Health and Care) needs assessment and issuing a final plan. She says the delay meant her child did not receive the support identified through the EHC process as early as they should have done. We find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to provide a remedy for.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains the Council agreed to carry out an EHC needs assessment for her child, D, but has failed to complete it within the statutory timescales due to a shortage of educational psychologists.
2. Mrs Y says this delay has left D without access to suitable education, meaning she had to arrange alternative provision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs Y 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

What should happen

8. 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 decides not to conduct an EHC needs assessment it must give the child’s parent or young person information about their right to appeal to the Tribunal.
• 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 carry out an assessment, it must decide whether to issue an EHC Plan or refuse to issue a Plan within 16 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);  
• Councils must give the child’s parent or the young person 15 days to comment on a draft EHC Plan and express a preference for an educational placement.

What happened

9. This section summarises the key events relevant to the complaint. It is not a complete chronology.
10. In December 2024, and when D was in Year 9, Mrs Y requested to de-register D from their allocated secondary school and informed the Council of her intention to electively home educate (EHE). At this time, D did not have an EHC plan. In her notification to the Council, Mrs Y said:

“It is after very careful consideration and discussion that we have now decided to take full responsibility for providing for [D’s] education by Home Educating them in accordance with section 7 of the 1996 Education Act. We therefore instruct school to delete [D] from the school register with immediate effect, in accordance with Regulation 9(1)(f) of The School Attendance (Pupil Registration) (England) Regulations 2024. We will ensure that [D] is provided with an efficient full-time education suitable to [their] age, ability, aptitude and to any special educational needs”.

11. Following this, D’s school also sent a formal notification to the Council confirming Mrs Y’s decision to EHE. The school explained it had taken measures to try and help D engage with school, such as reduced hours in its personalised learning zone but that ultimately Mrs Y made the decision to home educate.
12. On 1 April 2025, and almost four months after Mrs Y started home educating D, she made a request to the Council for an EHC needs assessment. The Council considered the request and on 29 April 2025 decided to assess D. It confirmed this in writing on 7 May 2025.
13. The Council wrote to Mrs Y on 15 July 2025 to explain that, due to a shortage of Educational Psychologists (EP), its assessment of D may not complete within the statutory 20 week deadline.
14. Mrs Y complained to the Council about the delays. The Council responded in August 2025 to reiterate the problem with delays caused by the EP shortages and signposted Mrs Y to other agencies for help and support in the meantime.
15. On 6 February 2026 the Council allocated an EP to D’s case and emailed Mrs Y to provide an update.
16. The Council received the EP’s advice on 19 March 2026 and issued a draft EHC plan on 22 May 2026.
17. On 23 June 2026 the Council issued a final EHC plan which included EOTAS provision (education other than at school).

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mrs Y and D?

18. The Council made the initial decision to assess D within statutory timescales. However, there was significant delay in obtaining EP advice because the Council could not allocate an EP until February 2026. The Council said this was due to a shortage of EPs. However, the responsibility for securing the required advice remained with the Council. As a result, the Council did not issue the final EHC plan until 23 June 2026, around 44 weeks after the statutory 20‑week deadline.
19. Where delay in completing the EHC needs assessment process is caused by difficulties obtaining EP advice, we usually find fault for the delay and the resulting injustice of frustration, uncertainty and delayed appeal rights. The usual starting point for a financial remedy is £100 for each month the process extends beyond the statutory timescales, continuing until the point the parent receives a right of appeal, usually through a refusal to issue an EHC plan or the issue of a final plan.
20. This symbolic payment is intended to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty caused to families by the delay. It is not intended to remedy any loss of special educational provision, because the child did not have an EHC plan during the period of delay. Therefore, entitlement to specified provision was not established.
21. The EP related delay in this case amounts to around ten months. The Council has agreed to our recommendation to make a payment of £1000 to acknowledge the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused to Mrs Y and D.

Back to top

Action

22. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Mrs Y and D for the fault we have identified in this statement. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings; and
• Make a total payment of £1000 for the 44 week period of delay as identified in this statement.
23. The Council has a SEND improvement plan in place which includes actions to address delays in the EHC assessment process. While we recognise there is a national shortage of educational psychologists, councils should take reasonable steps to mitigate delays. We will not recommend that the Council produce a further action plan. However, the Council should ensure it continues to review how it secures educational psychology advice and implements its existing improvement plan to minimise avoidable delay.
24. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

25. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to implement the actions listed in the section above to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman