Summary: Ms Y complains the Council significantly delayed completing her child's EHC (Education, Health and Care) needs assessment and issuing a final plan after the SEND Tribunal ordered it to complete an assessment. She says the delay meant her child did not receive the support identified through the EHC process as early as they should have done. We find fault causing injustice which the Council will remedy with the actions listed in the final section of this statement.

The complaint

1. Ms Y complains the Council delayed completing D’s EHC needs assessment and issuing a final EHC plan following a SEND Tribunal order requiring it to assess D. She says the final EHC plan was issued significantly outside the statutory timescales.
2. Ms Y says the delay meant D did not receive the special educational provision identified through the EHC assessment process as early as they should have done.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have not investigated matters relating to D’s education prior to the Tribunal’s decision. This is because the Council’s initial refusal to assess was subject to a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal, which Ms Y used. Furthermore, the events occurred more than 12 months before Ms Y made the complaint to us. Under the Local Government Act 1974, we would not normally investigate matters that occurred more than 12 months before a complaint is made, unless there are good reasons to do so. I have not found good reason in this case. Ms Y was aware of D’s difficulties with accessing education when they stopped attending school in 2022, and there is no evidence of any barrier which prevented her from bringing a complaint to us at the time.
8. I have therefore focused my investigation on the period following the Tribunal’s order of 3 January 2025, and whether the Council complied with the required timescales.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Ms Y 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

What should happen

11. Where a council refuses to carry out an EHC needs assessment and the SEND Tribunal allows an appeal, the council must comply with the Tribunal’s order in accordance with Regulation 44 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014. This requires the council to:
• notify the parent or young person within two weeks that it will carry out an assessment; and
• where it decides to issue an EHC plan, issue the final EHC plan as soon as practicable and, in any event, within 14 weeks of the date of the order.
12. Alongside this, the SEND Code of Practice (2015) sets out the expected process for completing an EHC assessment. This includes seeking relevant professional advice, such as educational psychology (EP) advice, and then:
• preparing a draft EHC plan,
• allowing the parent or young person the opportunity to comment and request a placement and issuing a final EHC plan without avoidable delay.
13. Councils are expected to obtain professional advice promptly and to manage their processes to meet statutory timescales. While there are national shortages of EPs, this does not remove a council’s responsibility to comply with statutory duties.
14. Our guidance recognises that where delay is caused by difficulties obtaining EP advice, this is a service failure which will often lead to uncertainty and frustration. Once EP advice is received, the council should then progress promptly through the remaining stages of the process. This usually involves issuing a draft plan, consulting, and finalising the plan within around six to eight weeks, subject to any necessary representations or consultation.

What happened

15. This section summarises the key events relevant to the complaint. It is not a complete chronology.
16. At the time of the matters complained about, D was over 16 and attending college. D was not of statutory school age.
17. In 2024, the Council received a request to carry out an EHC needs assessment for D. The Council refused the request. Ms Y appealed that decision.
18. On 3 January 2025, the SEND Tribunal allowed the appeal and ordered the Council to carry out an EHC needs assessment for D. The Council contacted Ms Y on 14 January 2025 to confirm the Tribunal’s order and allocated a caseworker.
19. The Council carried out the assessment and decided that an EHC plan was necessary for D.
20. In late January 2025, the Council told Ms Y there was a delay in allocating an EP due to high demand.
21. The records show Ms Y contacted the Council regularly for updates, but the Council was unable to provide a clear timescale.
22. In May 2025 Ms Y made a complaint. She said D had attended college since 2024. She reported D’s attendance was around 50% before February 2025, increasing to 100% thereafter.
23. The Council received the EP’s advice on 3 August 2025.
24. The Council apologised to Mrs Y for the delay and referred to the national shortage of EPs. Dissatisfied with this response, Ms Y complained to the Ombudsman in early November 2025.
25. The Council issued the final EHC plan on 17 November 2025. This named the college D was already attending and included additional provision to meet D’s assessed special educational needs.

Was there fault by the Council causing injustice to Ms Y and D?

26. I have considered the injustice caused by the Council’s delay in two separate periods. This is because the nature of the injustice changed once the Council obtained the EP advice in August 2025. Before that point, the delay primarily caused uncertainty and frustration while the Council completed the assessment.
27. After receiving the EP advice, the Council was able to progress the assessment to its conclusion and issue a final EHC plan identifying the provision D required. The delay in this period therefore meant D did not receive the benefit of that provision when they should have done.

Period one

28. The Tribunal ordered the Council to carry out an EHC needs assessment on 3 January 2025. In accordance with regulation 44 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014, the Council should have issued a final EHC plan by mid-April 2025.
29. There is fault because the Council delayed progressing the EHC needs assessment following the Tribunal’s order in January 2025. Most of this delay was due to difficulties obtaining EP advice which the Council eventually received in August 2025. Where delay is caused by shortages in EP provision, our guidance recognises this will primarily cause frustration, uncertainty and delay rather than a clear loss of provision. In such cases, we apply a standard symbolic payment of £100 per month to reflect that injustice. The Council has agreed to make a payment of £700 for the injustice caused during period one.

Period two

30. After receiving the EP report in August 2025, the Council should have moved promptly to complete the process and issue the final EHC plan within a further six to eight weeks to allow for consultations to take place.
31. Although D remained in the same placement throughout the whole period, the EHC plan identified special educational provision which was not in place before. This included specific provision in Section F, such as regular one‑to‑one support, small group interventions and weekly life skills sessions. There is no evidence D had access to this provision before receiving the final EHC plan.
32. I am satisfied that, had the Council completed the process within the required timescales, this provision would likely have been secured earlier. The delay between August and November 2025, and after receipt of the EP advice, caused a loss of opportunity to receive that provision.
33. Although part of this period fell during the summer holidays, the delay continued into the autumn term when D could reasonably have been receiving the provision specified in the EHC plan. This period therefore equates to roughly one academic term of missed access to that provision. Our Remedies Guidance suggests a symbolic tariff payment for each term of missed provision. In this case, I consider a payment of £900 is appropriate to recognise this loss.

Back to top

Action

34. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Ms Y and D for the fault we have identified in this statement. 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.
• Make a total payment of £1600 for the whole period of delay between April and November 2025.
35. The Council has a SEND improvement plan in place which includes actions to address delays in the EHC assessment process. While we recognise there is a national shortage of educational psychologists, councils should take reasonable steps to mitigate delays. We will not recommend that the Council produce a further action plan. However, the Council should ensure it continues to review how it secures educational psychology advice and implements its existing improvement plan to minimise avoidable delay.
36. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman