Summary: Mr Y complains about delays in the Council's assessment of D’s special educational needs and the production of their Education, Health and Care Plan. We find fault because the Council took longer than the statutory timescales to complete the process. Although the Council agreed to provide alternative education while D could not attend school, it did not record how it decided the type and amount of provision D should receive. As a result, D received part-time education for an extended period. The Council will apologise, make a symbolic payment and implement service improvements.

The complaint

1. Mr Y complains the Council delayed issuing his child’s (D) final Education, Health and Care Plan beyond the statutory timescales. He says this meant D missed education and preparation for their examinations and caused avoidable distress.

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 recommend 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

4. This investigation considers the period from October 2024, when D stopped attending school, to October 2025, when Mr Y brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. I acknowledge the Council subsequently agreed to make further amendments to D's EHC plan and that matters remained ongoing after that date. However, those events occurred after Mr Y's complaint to us and fall outside the scope of this investigation. I have therefore focused my investigation on the Council's actions and any resulting injustice up to October 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mr Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mr Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
7. 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 happen

EHC assessment and planning timescales

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);  

Alternative provision

9. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that the council must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child. The alternative educational provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.
10. If a council discovers a child is absent from school for an extended period, it should consider the reasons for this and take account of evidence from relevant parties (such as the child’s school, parents, and medical professionals). It must then decide whether it has a duty to make alternative educational provision.
11. Councils should consider any attempts the school is making to support the child. This might involve sending work home for the child to complete, arranging disability related support, placing the child on a reduced timetable, or providing online education as a short-term measure. If there is a clear, effective, and time-bound plan for reintegration then there may be no immediate role for the council in providing alternative education.
12. If the council decides it must arrange alternative provision, it needs to arrange provision based on the child’s individual needs. It should also have a review process to ensure the provision remains in the child’s best interests. Councils can decide a child cannot cope with full-time provision, especially where the reason for their non-attendance is medical. When this happens, the Council should provide reasons for the amount of provision it arranges.

What happened

13. This section covers the key events relevant to the complaint and is not intended to be a complete chronology.
14. At the time of the matters complained about, D attended a mainstream secondary school and initially did not have an EHC plan.
15. In mid-October 2024, D stopped attending school. Around this time, the Council received a request for an EHC needs assessment. It also received notification of D’s ongoing absence from school.
16. The Council called Mr Y on 26 November to confirm its decision not to proceed with the assessment. Mr Y told the Council that D had not attended school for five weeks and had not received any information about online learning, despite signing up for a package with D’s school.
17. From December 2024 D’s school arranged online learning in Maths, English, Geography and two sciences. Mr Y welcomed this but raised concerns that D was missing out on a full-time education.
18. In January 2025 the Council received additional information about D’s needs which highlighted possible SEN. Following this, the Council agreed to proceed with an EHC needs assessment.
19. The Council arranged a temporary school placement for D from 3 February 2025 for a period of 12 weeks. This was at a school specialising in educating children with social, emotional, and mental health difficulties in small classes of up to five children.
20. The Educational Psychologist (EP) provided their advice on 5 February 2025.
21. Mr Y contacted the Council on 1 April 2025 to obtain an update on the progress of the EHC needs assessment. He expressed concern that D only had a few weeks left at their temporary school. The Council told Mr Y it was drafting D’s EHC plan.
22. The Council wrote to Mr Y on 17 April 2025 with the first copy of a draft EHC plan.
23. Mr Y provided comments on 29 April, and the Council issued a second draft EHC plain in July 2025. Around this time Mr Y again raised concerns about the prolonged timescales and made a formal complaint.
24. Mr Y provided comments on the second draft on 28 July 2025, and the Council issued a further draft EHC plan on 12 August. The Council continued to consult with potential schools for D.
25. On 29 September 2025 the Council issued a final EHC plan. It named the mainstream secondary school where D was already allocated to. The Council acknowledged that Mr Y would likely be disappointed with the outcome and highlighted his right of appeal.
26. Mr Y complained to the Ombudsman in October 2025.

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

27. The Council accepted it did not complete the EHC assessment and planning process within the statutory timescales. It acknowledged there were delays in issuing amended draft plans, consulting schools and in issuing the final EHC plan. The Council also accepted its communication with Mr Y was sometimes poor during the process and apologised for the frustration this caused.
28. The Council should have issued D’s EHC plan by the end of April 2025. The Council issued the final plan at the end of September; a delay of around four months. To recognise that delay, the Council offered a remedy of £400 and a further £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the family.
29. After Mr Y challenged the response and pointed out that the delay was continuing, the Council reviewed the remedy. It increased the payment for delay to £550 and, together with the distress payment, increased the total offer to £700. The Council said this reflected ongoing delay up to mid-October 2025.
30. The delay in assessing D and issuing their final EHC plan caused frustration, delayed Mr Y's appeal rights and led to some loss of educational benefit. The delay postponed the point at which D's special educational needs were recognised through the EHC process and the specialist provision identified for those needs became enforceable. While D continued to receive some educational provision during this period, I do not consider the Council's remedy fully recognises the injustice caused by the delay.
31. During the period complained about D received the following provision:
• Online learning arranged by D’s allocated secondary school from 10 December 2024, covering core subjects including Maths, English, Geography and Science.
• Temporary school placement from 3 February 2025 for a 12-week period. D attended four days per week in a small class setting and received additional support for their social, emotional and mental health needs.
• Tuition from an alternative provider from late 2025 for six hours per week on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
32. The Council's records show it recognised the need to arrange alternative provision when D could not attend school. There is no dispute that the Council accepted it owed D a duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996. However, I have seen little evidence explaining how the Council decided what type of provision it should provide, how it determined the amount of provision D would receive, or how it satisfied itself that the package offered was suitable and in D's best interests. In the absence of any clear assessment, decision-making records or rationale, I cannot be satisfied the Council properly considered whether the alternative provision was sufficient to meet D's needs.
33. When deciding upon an appropriate remedy, I have taken account of the fact D was not completely without education throughout the period complained about. However, D was of secondary school age and there is limited evidence of any meaningful educational provision for a period equivalent to around one school term following the end of the temporary school placement in May 2025. I have also taken account of the broader period during which D received a reduced educational offer while the EHC process remained outstanding. I do not consider D experienced a complete loss of education throughout the whole period and for that reason I have not recommended a remedy at the upper end of the Ombudsman's range
34. Taken together, I therefore consider £2,000 is an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused by the Council's faults. If the Council has already paid the £700 offered through its complaints process, it will make a further payment of £1,300. If it has not already done so, it will make a total payment of £2,000.

Back to top

Action

35. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Mr Y and D and make a payment of £2000 (or £1300 if the previous payment of £700 has already been made). 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.
36. Within eight weeks of my final decision, the Council will remind relevant officers of the need to properly record Section 19 decision-making. This should include recording:
• whether the Council considers it owes a duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996;
• the evidence considered when making that decision;
• how it has determined the type and quantity of alternative provision; and
• why the Council considers the provision suitable in light of the child's age, aptitude, ability and any special educational needs.
37. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman