Summary: Ms F complained the Council caused delays in the Education, Health and Care plan process for her daughter (X) and failed to find her a suitable specialist placement. The Council apologised and made a payment to acknowledge the impact its delays caused. We found the Council’s remedy was appropriate. It was not at fault for failing to provide X with an education and special educational needs provision for the 2024/25 academic year as a school and alternative provision placement was available to her.

The complaint

1. Ms F complained about the Council’s delayed handling of the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process for her daughter (X) from December 2023 to April 2025, and its failure to find a suitable special school placement as agreed.
2. Ms F said, as a result, X had a loss of education, and they experienced distress and uncertainty.

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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
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 Tribunal in this decision statement.
8. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools unless it relates to special educational needs, when the schools are acting on behalf of the council to secure educational provision as set out in Section F of the young person’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

10. I have investigated:
• Ms F complaint about the Council’s handling of the EHC needs assessment process from December 2023 to April 2025. While part of her complaint is late as this related to events which occurred more than 12 months before she brought it to our attention, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion; and
• the education X received after her EHC plan was issued in April 2025 to July 2025 when the academic year ended.
11. I have not investigated events which occurred in the 2025/26 academic year. This is because this was not part of Ms F’s complaint to the Council. Any concerns about the education X received or the Council’s handling of amending the EHC plan and school placement since September 2025 has therefore not been considered through the Council’s complaint process.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms F and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Ms F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received 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). What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Education, Health and Care plans

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 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).  

17. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section B: Special educational needs.  
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
• Section I: The name and/or type of educational placement 
• Section J: Details of any personal budget required to fund the provision in the EHC Plan.

18. There is a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal against a council’s description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified in their EHC Plan.

Maintaining the EHC plan

19. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
20. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

What happened

21. Ms F’s daughter (X) started attending a mainstream school (School Y) in September 2023. In late 2023 X was struggling in the school and Ms F asked the Council to complete an EHC needs assessment.
22. In Summer 2024 Ms F complained to the Council as X’s EHC needs assessment had not been completed.
23. The Council apologised and explained this was due to a shortage of educational psychologists. It was aware it had failed to meet the statutory timescales. It said once the process was completed, it would follow the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance. It also explained School Y could request further funding from the Council if it believed this was needed.
24. An educational psychologist assessed X in Autumn 2024. However, X’s needs had changed by then and further input and updates from professionals involved was needed. She was attending an alternative provision placement arranged by School Y with education spread over 4 days per week.
25. The Council issued X’s draft EHC plan in February 2025. It started consultations with schools, but soon after agreed X needed a specialist school placement. X final EHC Plan was issued in April 2025, which set out the support she should receive. It listed her existing mainstream school, but the type of placement needed was a specialist school. This was because the Council had not yet been able to arrange a specialist placement.
26. The Council consulted with a large number of special school placements, including independent schools and Ms F’s preferences. It chased some schools which did not provide responses. One special school offered a place but withdrew the offer only a few weeks later. By the end of the academic year the Council had still been unable to find a special school placement for X, which included consulting with Ms F’s parental preference twice.
27. In June 2025 X was struggling with her mental health. A child protection plan was put in place and X received support from the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS).
28. Ms F complained to the Council about its handling of X’s EHC plan process and lack of a suitable school placement. She questioned:
• what happened with the special school placement which offered X a place, and another placement which had no space until September 2025;
• why its remedy payment for the delayed EHC needs assessment process had not been received; and
• why no special school placement had been found for X.
29. A week later Ms F told the Council she had asked School Y to end the alternative provision placement. She said this was because the environment and other children were impacting X. The academic year ended a few days later, X therefore did not attend further education in the Summer 2025.
30. In July 2025 the Council acknowledged Ms F’s complaint and explained its remedy payment would be issued shortly. It subsequently provided its payment to acknowledge the 46 weeks delay in its handling of the EHC needs assessment process, equivalent to £100 per month. Ms F had chased the payment since April 2025 when X’s final EHC plan was issued.
31. In response to Ms F’s complaint, the Council apologised for its delayed handling of the EHC plan process. It explained it had referred X’s case to its placement panel in February 2025 when Ms F requested a special school placement, but it had been unable to find a suitable placement. As an interim measure it had discussed mainstream school options until a placement could be found from September 2025.
32. Ms F asked the Council to escalate her complaint as she was not satisfied with its apology and remedy payment due to the impact X had experienced. She said she was unhappy the Council was suggesting X should return to School Y for the 2025/26 academic year. She also believed a school she had requested had not been consulted.
33. In September 2025 the Council provided its final complaint response. It explained it had:
• apologised and provided a remedy for its delayed handling of the EHC plan process;
• consulted with schools Ms F had requested but they could not meet X’s needs. It said it was continuing to consult with specialist school placements. It again apologised for the delay;
• provided School Y with X’s EHC plan funding so it could provide the required special educational needs provision. It said the school could seek additional funding if evidence of such need was provided; and
• it had allocated a worker to monitor progress on X’s case.
34. Ms F asked the Ombudsman to consider her complaint. She also said School Y was now only offering one hour per day of education and said it cannot meet X’s needs. Ms F confirmed she has not appealed to the SEND tribunal.
35. In response to our enquiries, the Council shared information about reasons for delays in the EHC plan process, its consultations with schools, and confirmed X was attending School Y from September 2025. It said this was initially limited to enable her to re-engage but hours had since increased.

Analysis and findings

Delays in the Education, Health and Care plan process

36. The Council has accepted fault in its handling of the EHC plan process from December 2023 to April 2025 when it issued its final plan for X. This was fault. It has apologised to Ms F and provided a remedy.
37. I acknowledge Ms F feels further compensation should be paid due to the impact X has experienced. However, I am satisfied the Council’s remedy was appropriate and in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies to acknowledge its delayed handling of the EHC plan process.
38. I have also considered whether any service improvement should be made to ensure the Council adheres to the statutory timescales of the process. However, the Council had an action plan in place following other Ombudsman decisions. This was to address issues in its processes during the same time period of Ms F’s complaint. It has since carried out these improvements to our satisfaction.

X’s education and school placement

39. Prior to April 2025 X did not have an EHC plan. She was on roll with School Y which had arranged for her to receive her education at an alternative provision placement due to her challenges in attending the school.
40. It was School Y which was responsible for providing X with her education during this time and she was attending her placement. Any concerns Ms F had about the education X received should have been addressed to the school.
41. Once the Council issued X’s final EHC plan in April 2025, the Council became responsible for ensuring she received her education and provision as set out in the plan. I have not found fault by the Council. In reaching my view, I was conscious:
• X’s EHC plan listed School Y, which was the placement available to X. While Ms F had appeal rights against the school placement listed or its failure to name a specialist placement, I would not have expected Ms F to appeal to the SEND Tribunal. This is because the Council had confirmed it would source a specialist placement for X and had started the process;
• The Council consulted with a large number of special schools, which included independent schools, parental preference schools, and placements Ms F believed it had not consulted;
• although one school did offer a placement, it was not due to fault by the Council this did not progress. This was because the offer was withdrawn by the school shortly after, during a period where X had been hospitalised and required further assessment;
• the Council provided School Y with the special educational needs funding to enable it to provide the provision set out in her plan. The school shared X’s EHC plan with the alternative provision it had arranged. X therefore had the special educational needs provision available to her;
• while Ms F disagreed with the school placement listed in X’s EHC plan, she did not raise a complaint to the Council about the amount or quality of the provision available to X; and
• Ms F wanted the Ombudsman to force the Council to find or list a special school placement. This is not something we can do. Only the SEND Tribunal can decide whether a school placement is unsuitable or list a specific school placement.
42. I understand Ms F asked School Y to stop the alternative provision a few days before the end of the academic year. There was therefore no time for School Y or the Council to consider X’s educational provision for that academic year. As explained in paragraph 11, I have not considered Ms F concerns about the Council’s handling of X’s education for the 2025/26 academic year.

Back to top

Decision

43. I found the Council at fault for delays in the Education, Health and Care plan process which caused an injustice. However, it has already remedied this through its complaints process. There was no fault in how it handled X’s education for the remainder of the 2024/25 academic year.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman