Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council delayed finalising her daughter’s Education, Health and Care plan. We have found the Council was at fault. It caused a delay of five months. This meant
Mrs X’s daughter missed out on some support she needed, and
Mrs X’s right to appeal was frustrated. The Council has agreed to take action to address their injustice.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council delayed finalising her daughter Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan, prioritised other cases over hers, and has not agreed to reimburse the cost of an independent educational psychologist report.

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. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint that the Council prioritised another assessment over Y’s. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to tell a council how to allocate its resources or prioritise its work. It is unlikely we would find fault with the Council if we investigated this matter further.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant guidance.
8. The Council and Mrs X had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

9. A child with special educational needs may have an EHC plan. This document describes the arrangements which should be made to meet the child’s needs.
10. Statutory government guidance (the ‘SEND code of practice’) says that, within six weeks of receiving a request for an EHC needs assessment, the council must write to the child’s parent and tell them whether it will do an assessment.
11. If the council goes on to issue an EHC plan, the whole process (from the assessment request to the plan being issued) must take no more than 20 weeks.
12. As part of the assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulations 2014, Regulation 6(1)). This includes psychological advice and information from an educational psychologist.

What happened

13. In April 2025, Mrs X asked the Council to carry out an EHC needs assessment for Y.
14. The EHC plan was due to be issued in August 2025. In September 2025, Y’s school wrote to Mrs X to confirm it would pay half the cost of an educational psychologist consultation to inform the EHC needs assessment
15. In mid-October 2025, Mrs X complained to the Council. Later that month, the Council responded. It accepted there had been a delay and said difficulties recruiting and retaining educational psychologists had contributed to this. The Council said it was actively working to recruit and retain educational psychologists and was expanding the use of virtual assessments where appropriate.
16. The Council also told Mrs X that, while it may use independent educational psychologist reports if they meet its standards, it was unable to reimburse the cost.
17. At the end of October 2025, Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
18. Toward the end of January 2026, the Council finalised Y’s plan.
19. In March 2026, Y’s school confirmed that it paid for all of the educational psychologist’s report, rather than sharing the cost with Mrs X.

My findings

20. The statutory timescale for issuing EHC plans is clear and non-negotiable. The Council should have issued Y’s plan by August 2025. The plan was issued in January 2026. This is fault.
21. The Council has explained the reason for the delay. I accept that there have been national problems recruiting educational psychologists to assess children’s special educational needs. However, this does not change the statutory timescale, or the injustice caused to Mrs X and Y from the delay.
22. Because of the delay in her EHC plan, Y will have missed out on some support, and Mrs X experienced inconvenience (not least from feeling she had to make a complaint to the Council and, subsequently, to us). Her right to appeal the EHC plan was also frustrated.
23. It was the Council’s responsibility to gather advice from an educational psychologist during Y’s EHC needs assessment. To avoid further delay, the school arranged and funded the full cost of the educational psychologist’s assessment. As the school met the entire cost, there is no basis for reimbursing Mrs X.

Back to top

Action

24. Within four weeks the Council has agreed to:
• Write to Mrs X, apologising for the delay in issuing Y’s EHC plan. We publish guidance which sets out what we expect an effective apology to look like. The Council will consider this guidance when writing to Mrs X.
• Make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mrs X, on Y’s behalf, to recognise the Council’s delay beyond the statutory timeframe in finalising the EHC plan and frustrating Mrs X’s right of appeal.
25. The Council will provide us with evidence it has done these things.

Back to top

Decision

26. The Council was at fault. This caused injustice to Mrs X and Y, which the Council will now take action to address.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman