Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care needs assessment for her son within statutory timeframes, and he did not receive full-time education during this. We found the Council at fault for delays and for not properly considering elements of its alternative provision duty. This caused significant frustration, distress and uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to recognise the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to complete an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for her son within statutory timeframes. She also says during this, her son did not receive appropriate full-time education. This caused the family significant frustration distress and uncertainty about his education during this period, with concerns he was not getting what he is entitled to.

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. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have considered the whole time taken for the EHC needs assessment process up to June 2025 (when the Council issued a final Education, Health and Care Plan). For the part of Miss X’s complaint about her son’s education, I have generally considered from October 2024 to April 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views and information she provided.
8. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Miss 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

Law and administrative background

Education, Health and Care Plans (EHC Plans)

10. A child 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. Parents have a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. This is only engaged once a final EHC Plan has been issued.
11. 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 SEND Regulations 2014. It says 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. 
12. The SEND Regulations 2014 say: If a council refuses to carry out an EHC needs assessment but then it overturns its decision, then it must either decide not to issue an EHC plan within 10 weeks or issue a final EHC Plan within 14 weeks of this decision (Regulation 44(2)(b)).
13. As part of the EHC needs assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND 2014 Regulations, Regulation 6(1)). This includes advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP). Those consulted have six weeks to provide the advice.

Alternative provision

14. Councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils (of compulsory school age) who are out of school because of exclusion, illness or for other reasons, if they would not receive suitable education without such arrangements. The provision generally should be full-time unless it is not in the child’s interests. (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision.
15. We issued a guide for practitioners "Supporting children out of school" in October 2025. This outlines good practice on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to provide education for children who, for whatever reason, do not attend school full-time.

Background

16. Miss X’s son (Y) has special educational needs (SEN). He started attending the “School”, a mainstream primary school in September 2024.

What happened – summary of key relevant events

EHC needs assessment

17. In early July 2024, Miss X submitted an EHC needs assessment request for her son. The Council refused to assess. At the end of August, the Council overturned its decision at mediation.
18. In November 2024, Miss X formally complained. She said the Council gave her inconsistent and varying information about expected timescales for the rest of the process.
19. In mid-December 2024, the Council apologised for the unnecessary confusion it caused with its information. It accepted it did not communicate with her correctly or in a timely way. It also apologised for delays with the EHC needs assessment and getting the required advice. It was due to high demand with the national shortage of Educational Psychologists (EPs). It upheld her complaint.
20. In January 2025, Miss X escalated her complaint. She added Y was attending alternative provision for 15 hours a week, which was not full-time education.
21. Three weeks later, the Council responded at Stage 2. It generally maintained its previous findings. It said Y’s current educational provision should be directed to the School. It had not received a request from the School to consider arranging alternative provision.
22. In April 2025, the Council received the EP report. In early June 2025, the Council issued a final EHC Plan. This named the School.
23. In October 2025, Miss X complained to us.

Y’s education

24. In October 2024, the School asked the Council for support. The School suspended Y due to incidents from unmet SEN; he could not attend for more than 20 minutes a day. The School wanted to avoid a permanent exclusion. The School arranged for Y to attend an alternative provision placement (APP) for 15 hours a week.
25. The Council’s Education Inclusion Service (EIS) became involved. It met with Miss X, the School and the APP. They agreed Y was making progress at the APP. The School said it would fund it as long as they could but needed help.
26. In November 2024, the Council discussed possible interventions with the School. The School said Y had a high risk of permanent exclusion if he were to return, risking both himself and others. His behaviour remained the same, even at the APP.
27. In December 2024, a Council Panel awarded exceptional funding to the School, linked to a reintegration plan. Y then became of compulsory school age.
28. In late January 2025, the School asked the Council if it should complete a Section 19 request for full-time alternative provision given Y’s age.
29. In early February 2025, the Council met with Miss X, the School and the APP. The School reported three attempts at reintegrating Y over the previous month. Even with adjustments, each time Y could not manage more than 15 minutes, detrimentally impacting him and others. He did well at the APP as it’s environment could better manage this. They discussed Section 19 and the Council said Y would not fit the criteria as he had education provision in place. The School and the APP said it was not in Y’s best interests to continue reintegration attempts.
30. Council notes show it thought a multi-disciplinary intervention may be beneficial for wider support available, rather than Section 19. It agreed to pause reintegration and asked the School and the APP to review its reintegration approach.
31. In March 2025, the Council spoke to the School. The School had concerns Y would not be able to continue the APP due to funding reasons. If Y returned to School, it would have to follow its behaviour policy about exclusions.
32. In mid-April 2025, the Council’s EIS closed Y’s case. It said the School and other professionals were providing an appropriate level of support to Y.

Analysis

EHC needs assessment

33. The Council first refused to assess Y. It decided this within six weeks of Miss X’s request, which is within statutory timeframes. Shortly after, at mediation, the Council agreed to assess. After this decision, the Council should have issued the final EHC Plan within 14 weeks. In this case, by early December 2024.
34. It did not do this until June 2025. This resulted in an overall delay of 6 months. This is fault. This caused Miss X avoidable frustration and distress as she had to wait notably longer than necessary to receive a final EHC Plan. This delay was down to the Council not receiving the necessary advice from an EP until April 2025. We recognise there is a national shortage of EPs affecting many areas, but statutory guidance is clear regarding timescales and the Council failed to meet this. We describe this as fault in the form of service failure (Paragraph 3). The Council also accepted fault with giving confusing and contradictory communication to Miss X about timescales, causing avoidable frustration.

Y’s education in the period I am considering

35. Between October and December 2024:
• the Council knew of Y’s part-time attendance at the APP. The Council appropriately had discussions with the School, Miss X and the APP to review progress and possible adjustments the School could make. This included exceptional funding with the expectation Y would reintegrate back into the School.
36. I do not find fault with the Council’s actions up to here. It was entitled to try this approach and allow the School some time to make adjustments and see if these succeeded. In any event, Y was not yet compulsory school age, so the Council did not have a legal Section 19 duty at this point.
37. After February 2025, the Council did review the situation. It agreed to pause the reintegration because of the negative impacts. But it also wanted to continue with the reintegration route. The School had already strongly voiced concerns about this. I recognise the Council’s goal to get Y back into the School but this did not work. I cannot see the Council, given the significant safety concerns, then making a decision on the evidence available about whether, or why, it thought the School remained available and practically accessible to him.
38. Alongside this, the Council said it was satisfied Y had a suitable education at the APP for his needs, so it did not have a Section 19 duty. I am not persuaded by this. While the School can arrange off-site alternative provision to support a child, the ultimate legal duty to ensure full-time education rests with the Council if a child cannot access their school place. Y was now compulsory school age.
39. The APP was on a part-time basis of 15 hours a week. Education provision should be full-time unless it is not in the child’s interests. I cannot see evidence if the Council decided this and for what reasons. A part-time timetable should only be temporary and should be reviewed with a view to increasing it to full-time. I cannot see evidence of whether the Council considered if it needed to intervene to secure additional provision for Y or increase the hours. Shortly after, the EIS closed its case. But it did not evidence how it satisfied itself of the full-time element.
40. Overall, I can see the Council had some consideration of its general Section 19 duties. But, on balance, the records do not show clear decisions or reasons on the above important considerations. This is fault. This causes some uncertainty to Miss X about whether it properly considered these or not, and if it had, whether it could have made a difference to Y’s situation at the time. This is her injustice.
41. I generally consider the Council was in regular contact with Miss X and other involved parties around Y’s situation, which is positive. I appreciate it positively offered informal support to Miss X to try and manage Y’s needs throughout, but this does not override the Council’s duties and considerations around providing full-time education.

Back to top

Agreed Action

42. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the faults identified;
• Pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £600 to recognise the impact of the delays to her and Y with the EHC needs assessment process;
• Pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £150 to recognise her additional injustice with uncertainty and frustration. This is due to poor communication around the EHC needs assessment and the Council not properly evidencing its considerations around its Section 19 duty between February and April 2025.
43. In previous decisions around similar fault, we have made service improvement recommendations. Some of these were made after the events of this complaint, so I do not consider it necessary to make further ones at this stage. We will monitor progress through our casework.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman