Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to meet statutory timescales during the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process for her son. We find the Council was at fault for failing to meet statutory deadlines during the assessment. This caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty. The Council has made a suitable offer to remedy Mrs X’s injustice. We do not recommend anything further.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to meet statutory timescales during the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process for her son (Y). She also complained how the Council dealt with her complaint. She says the Council’s faults have caused anxiety and distress. She also says it has adversely affected Y’s educational progress.

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

How I considered this complaint

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

Relevant law and guidance

7. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’) sets out the process for carrying out EHC needs 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. 
• 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).

8. 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). Those consulted have a maximum of six weeks to provide the advice. 
9. If a parent disagrees with the description of a child or young person’s special educational needs, the special educational provision specified, and the school or placement specified in the EHC Plan then they can appeal to the Tribunal.

What happened

10. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
11. Mrs X asked the Council to complete an EHC needs assessment for Y in mid-April 2025. The Council agreed to complete the assessment in late May.
12. Mrs X emailed the Council in July and said it was not progressing Y’s EHC needs assessment in a timely manner.
13. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in early August. It explained the delays were due to an increase in requests for EHC needs assessments and a lack of EPs. It said it had recruited new EPs, and it was working with organisations who supply EPs to undertake assessments. It apologised to Mrs X for the delays.
14. Mrs X contacted the Council at the end of August and said she was not happy with its response. She said it had a duty to comply with statutory timescales.
15. The Council issued a further response to Mrs X’s complaint in September. It explained the recruitment of EPs was helping to reduce the waiting times. It also said it had recruited additional staff in the special educational needs department. This was having a positive impact, although it would be a gradual improvement. It apologised for the uncertainty and frustration caused. It agreed to contact her with an update on Y’s EHC needs assessment within the next four weeks.
16. Mrs X referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in October because of the Council’s ongoing delays.
17. An EP assessed Y and produced their report on 18 November.
18. Mrs X made a further complaint to the Council in early January 2026 about the further delays with Y’s EHC needs assessment. She said it had failed to provide any updates since the EP completed their report.
19. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It apologised for its further delays. It said it would issue Y’s EHC Plan by 31 January. It also said it would pay £100 per month for the delays in issuing Y’s EHC Plan for up to six months.
20. The Council issued Y’s draft EHC Plan on 30 January. Mrs X provided her comments on 13 February.
21. Mrs X emailed the Council about her complaint. She said it had not considered the frustration caused by the delays, that it was a significant time for Y as he was doing his GCSEs and that the Ombudsman’s guidance recommends a payment until the EHC Plan is finalised and not a payment for up to six months.
22. The Council issued a further response to Mrs X’s complaint in mid-March. It said the wording in its earlier complaint response suggested the payment would be limited to six months. This was not the case. It apologised for the frustration caused. It agreed to pay her when it had finalised Y’s EHC Plan which would reflect the number of months it was overdue. It said it was unfortunate it had failed to issue Y’s final EHC Plan by 31 January.
23. The Council issued Y’s amended draft EHC Plan in early April. It issued his final EHC Plan on 27 April.

Back to top

Analysis

24. We expect councils to follow statutory timescales when dealing with a request for an EHC needs assessment. In this case, the Council significantly exceeded the timescales. It should have issued Y’s final EHC Plan by early September 2025. It did not do so until late April 2026. This is a nearly eight-month delay and is fault.
25. The initial delays in dealing with Y’s EHC needs assessment were because of a lack of EPs. I recognise this is a national problem. However, the Council still has a duty to meet the statutory deadlines. That it did not so do is a service failure.
26. Even after the EP gave their advice on 18 November, the Council still took too long to finalise Y’s EHC Plan. It should have finalised the Plan within two months. However, it took a further five months.
27. The Council also failed to keep Mrs X properly updated and it did not adhere to the deadlines or actions it set in its response to her complaint.
28. Mrs X has further concerns about the Council’s complaints handling. She says the Council made assumptions that it would issue Y with an EHC Plan. She also says it assumed she made a complaint because she wanted it to treat Y’s case as a priority. She adds the Council said there was no uncertainty Y had missed education even though he had been on a reduced timetable for over two years. Finally, she says it minimised her concerns.
29. When the Council issued its stage two response in September, it said “for the avoidance of doubt, the Council has yet to issue a decision on whether it will produce an EHC Plan for Y. For this reason, where I refer to the timeframe for an EHC Plan to be issued, this is theoretical, based on an assumption that Y will receive an EHC Plan”. It is not for the Ombudsman to tell the Council what to include in the complaint response or how to approach the complaints investigation. It clearly explained to Mrs X that it had made the theoretical assumption. It was entitled to do this, even if Mrs X disagrees. I also do not consider this assumption caused Mrs X a significant injustice. The Council accepted it had delayed dealing with Y’s EHC needs assessment.
30. In her referral to stage two in August, Mrs X said parents should not feel forced to navigate complaint processes to ensure local authorities fulfil their legal duty. In response, the Council said while Mrs X may have felt she had been forced to make a complaint to get it to complete Y’s EHC Plan, that was not the case. It also said it would not prioritise any cases when it had received a complaint. I agree with Mrs X that she did not ask the Council to prioritise Y’s case. However, given her comment about complaining to ensure the Council fulfils its legal duties, I do not find the Council was at fault for explaining how it treats cases when someone complains.
31. The Council explained to Mrs X in its complaint response in September there was no certainty Y had missed education he was entitled to. It said when it had drafted and finalised Y’s EHC Plan, it would decide whether he had missed provision because of its delays. If so, it would increase the provision in the Plan. While I understand Y has been on a reduced timetable, the Council was specifically referring to the provision in a potential EHC Plan for Y when it issued its response to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council was entitled to reach this view.
32. I do not accept the Council minimised Mrs X’s concerns. The Council recognised its faults and repeatedly apologised to Mrs X. However, it provided some context for its delays in dealing with Y’s EHC needs assessment which it was entitled to do.
33. The Council’s faults outlined in paragraphs 24 to 27 have caused Mrs X significant frustration and uncertainty about Y’s provision. Her appeal rights to the Tribunal were also frustrated.
34. The Council has repeatedly apologised to Mrs X. It issued further responses to her complaints after she referred it to the Ombudsman. It agreed to make a payment (£100 per month) to reflect the number of months Y’s EHC Plan was overdue. This is sufficient to remedy Mrs X’s injustice caused by the fault in this statement. I do not recommend anything further. The Council should make this payment to Mrs X if it has not done so already.
35. The Council has recruited additional staff, including EPs, to tackle its backlog. It is working with organisations who supply EPs to undertake assessments. These changes will take time to embed. Therefore, I have not recommended any service improvements. We will continue to monitor the Council’s progress through our casework.

Back to top

Decision

36. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mrs X an injustice. The Council has offered a suitable remedy to reflect this injustice. I make no further recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman