Summary: Mr X complained the Council delayed completing his child, Y’s Education, Health and Care needs assessment and issuing a final EHC Plan. We found the Council at fault for delay, and for failing to provide Y with suitable education and the special educational provision they were entitled to. This caused Y to miss provision and caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty and distress. The Council has already provided a suitable remedy for the injustice caused, so we have not made any further recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council delayed completing his child, Y's EHC needs assessment and issuing a final EHC Plan. He also says the placement is unsuitable. Although the Council has acknowledged fault and offered a financial remedy, Mr X does not consider this adequately recognises the impact the delays had on Y and his family.
2. Mr X says this is having an emotional and financial strain on the family.

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 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)
5. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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)
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 have and have not investigated

8. Mr X complained about the suitability of the placement named in Y's EHC Plan. If Mr X considered the named placement was unsuitable or believed a different placement should have been named, he can appeal to the SEND Tribunal, and I consider it reasonable for him to have done so. I have therefore not investigated this matter. Mr X also complained about the Council's delay in responding regarding an alternative school. I have not investigated this issue because it is inextricably linked to the question of which placement should have been named in Y's EHC Plan, which falls within the SEND Tribunal's jurisdiction.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legislation and guidance

EHC Plan 

11. 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. 

Timescales and process for EHC assessment 

12. 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).  
• Councils must give the child’s parent or the young person 15 days to comment on a draft EHC Plan and express a preference for an educational placement.

What happened

13. Mr X’s son, Y, has special educational needs. Mr X requested an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment in January 2024. The Council agreed to assess Y in March.
14. In November, Mr X contacted the Council. He said he had called several times for an update and wanted to make a complaint. The Council returned his call, explained it was waiting for the Educational Psychologist (EP) advice, and contacted the EP service for an update.
15. In January 2025, an EP visited Y at home to complete the outstanding assessment.
16. In Mid-January, Y started attending mainstream school on a part-time basis.
17. In February, Mr X attended a meeting with the Council, Y’s teaching assistant and the assistant headteacher. They agreed to gradually increase Y’s attendance at school. They recorded that Y settled well into school and engaged positively. The consultation also identified additional support Y needed. This included autism-specific training for staff, visual supports and timetable.
18. Later that month, the EP provided its advice to the Council as part of the EHC needs assessment.
19. In May, Mr X contacted the Council again. He said he had requested an update earlier that month because the draft EHC Plan had not been issued. He complained about the delay and said his caseworker was not responding to his requests for updates.
20. The Council responded to Mr X’s complaint in June. It accepted there had been delays in the EHC process and said this was because of difficulties obtaining EP advice and increased demand for EHC needs assessments. It acknowledged the final EHC Plan should have been issued by the end of June 2024 and apologised for the delay and offered Mr X £1,200.
21. Mr X remained dissatisfied and asked the Council to review its response. He said the delay affected his ability to work and caused additional costs because Y was attending school part time and needed significant support at home.
22. In July, Mr X contacted the Council again for an update. A few days later, Y’s caseworker replied by email and explained she had been absent from work. The final EHC Plan was issued later that month.
23. In August, the Council issued its final complaint response. It accepted the final EHC Plan was delayed by 13 months and acknowledged it had not always responded to Mr X’s communications. It increased its remedy offer to £3,250. Comprising:
• £1,300 for the delay in issuing the EHC Plan,
• £1,800 for two terms of lost education when Y attended school on a part-time basis, and
• £150 for poor communication.
24. Mr X accepted the payment.

In November, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.

25. In response to my enquiries, the Council provided attendance records that show Y’s gradual increase in attendance between January and July 2025 and that in total, Y attended school 60% of the time.

My findings

26. The Council accepts it did not complete Y’s EHC needs assessment or issue Y’s final EHC Plan within the statutory timescales.
27. Once the Council decided to carry out an EHC needs assessment, it was required to issue a final EHC Plan within 20 weeks of Mr X's request. It should have issued the Plan by the end of June 2024 but did not do so until July 2025, around 13 months late. This was fault.
28. Around eight months of the delay arose while waiting for EP advice. The Council explained the further delay was caused by increased demand on the service and staffing pressures. While I recognise these challenges, they do not remove the Council’s statutory duty to comply with the legal timescales.
29. As a result, Y missed out on the special educational provision that should have been in place earlier. The delay also caused Mr X avoidable uncertainty, frustration and distress.
30. The Council recognised the injustice, apologised and provided £3,250. I have considered whether this remedy is appropriate. In doing so I have considered our Guidance on Remedies, Y’s age, special educational needs, the provisions missed and Y’s part-time timetable during the delay. I am satisfied the remedy provided is reasonable and in line with our guidance.
31. I have not made a service improvement recommendation because the Council already has an action plan to improve the timeliness of issuing EHC Plans once EP reports are received. The Council is due to provide an update on its progress against this action plan by December 2026.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault. The Council has already provided an appropriate remedy to Mr X for the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman