Summary: The Council was at fault for delay assessing Mrs X’s child, W, for an Education, Health and Care Plan and for failing to give Mrs X the information she needed to make an informed choice about whether to commission a private educational psychologist assessment. This caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty, meant W missed out on provision they should have had and meant Mrs X paid for the assessment unnecessarily. The Council will make symbolic payments and reimburse Mrs X. It is already taking suitable action to prevent fault in future.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council took too long to assess her child, W, for an Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also complained about the Council’s communication with her. She said the issues meant W missed out on the support they needed, which meant they struggled in school. Mrs X also said the issues caused her distress and affected her wellbeing.

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. 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. 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.
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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mrs 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

Relevant law and guidance

Education, Health and Care Plans

9. Children with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
10. 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:
• Where a council receives a request for an EHC assessment it must decide whether to agree to the assessment within six weeks.
• If the council decides to carry out an assessment, it should do so “in a timely manner”;
• As part of the EHC assessment councils must gather advice from relevant professionals. This includes advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP). EP advice is based on an assessment of the child’s needs. Those consulted have six weeks to provide the advice;
• If the council decides to issue an EHC plan after an assessment, it should prepare a draft EHC plan and send it to schools that may be able to accept the child or young person and meet their needs; and
• The whole process should take no more than 20 weeks from the point the council received the assessment request to the date it issues the final EHC plan. This means councils have eight weeks from the date they receive the EP advice to issue a final EHC Plan.

What happened

11. In April 2025, W’s school asked the Council to assess them for an EHC Plan. It agreed to the assessment in late May.
12. Mrs X was aware that there are long wait times across the country for EP assessments. She says the Council told her the only way to reduce the wait time was to pay for a private EP assessment. As a result, she commissioned a private assessment. The EP issued their advice in mid-August and the Council received it in late September.
13. The Council reviewed the advice and decided it was suitable for use in the EHC assessment. It had received all the other advice it needed for the assessment by the time it received the private EP advice.
14. The Council issued W’s final EHC Plan in late December 2025. The provision included:
• Twice weekly intensive interaction sessions starting at ten minutes and rising to 40 minutes with an adult;
• Support interacting with their peers;
• A tailored curriculum;
• Specific support to help W with numeracy and literacy;
• Help transitioning between classes and a personalised safe space for W to use throughout the day;
• Weekly sessions of 20-30 minutes to explore W’s emotions; and
• Daily sensory activities and movement breaks.

Educational psychologists

15. There is a national shortage of EPs, which, combined with significant increased demand for EHC assessments, means that the wait for EP advice can be lengthy. To address this, the Council has implemented an EHC Plan waiting list ‘recovery plan’. As part of that plan, the Council agreed a £3m investment in late November 2025 to:
• Hire and keep more EPs;
• Streamline the assessment process;
• Provide greater support to parents while assessments are ongoing; and
• Improve how it monitors the process of assessments.
16. In response to a previous investigation (25 007 284), the Council told the Ombudsman that when a parent commissions a private EP assessment it considers if the assessment is of suitable quality to meet its requirements for EHC needs assessments. If it is, the Council will not require the child to have a Council-commissioned EP assessment as well.
17. The Council confirmed that purchasing a private EP assessment does not mean a child’s EHC needs assessment will be completed any sooner than if the child had waited for a Council commissioned EP assessment. The Council’s position is that, unless in exceptional circumstances, it will not reimburse parents for the cost of a private EP assessment.
18. That investigation concluded the Council had been at fault because it had not told the parent that it would not reimburse her for the cost of a private EP assessment or that obtaining such advice would not speed up her child’s EHC assessment. This meant the parent paid for the advice when they likely would not have done if they had all the information from the Council. We recommended the Council:
• Add information on its website about its approach to parents commissioning private EP advice. We said the Council should also add that information to the letters it sends to parents when it decides it will assess a child for an EHC Plan; and
• Prepare a policy or guidance for staff which sets out the Council’s approach to private EP advice.
19. The Council has since completed those recommendations.

Findings

EHC assessment delay

20. We expect councils to follow statutory timescales set out in the law and the Code. We are likely to find fault where there are significant breaches of those timescales.
21. After the Council decided it would assess W in late May 2025, it had six weeks to obtain the EP and other advice (by early July). The Council received the last of the advice by late September. This was ten weeks too long and was fault.
22. From late September, the Council had a further eight weeks to issue W’s final EHC Plan; by mid-November. It did so by late December, which was a delay of five weeks and was fault.
23. I cannot say, even on balance, that had the Council obtained the advice by early July and issued W’s EHC Plan eight weeks after that, it would have resulted in the same special educational provision as in the Plan the Council ultimately issued in December 2025. This is because EP advice is the key source of professional information for a child’s EHC Plan. The advice is based on the child’s presentation on the day of the assessment and children’s needs change rapidly. The provision in W’s final EHC Plan was based on the assessment the EP completed after early July. The injustice was therefore uncertainty and frustration for Mrs X for the period early July to late September.
24. From late September, the Council had all the information it needed to issue W’s EHC Plan. On balance of probabilities, if the Council had issued W’s Plan by mid-November 2025 as it should have, the Plan would likely contain very similar provision to that in W’s late December 2025 final Plan. This meant W missed out on five weeks’ worth of the special educational provision in the Plan.
25. In its response to a complaint from Mrs X, the Council apologised for the distress the delay caused her. I have therefore not recommended the Council apologise again. However, the apology does not address Mrs X’s injustice in full, nor does it remedy W’s injustice, so I have recommended symbolic payments, below.
26. I am pleased to see the Council is making efforts to improve how long it takes to do EHC assessments, as set out in paragraph 15. Because the Council has already taken suitable steps, I have not made a further recommendation.

EP advice

27. Mrs X commissioned a private EP assessment in the belief it would reduce the delay waiting for the outcome of W’s EHC needs assessment and ultimately, W’s final EHC Plan. Mrs X said the Council told her this would be the case. I have not confirmed if this is accurate because even without the Council’s alleged statement, it was reasonable for Mrs X to conclude that paying for a private EP assessment would expedite W’s case, given the wait for an EP assessment was the reason for the delay.
28. However, the Council has confirmed that if a parent obtains private EP advice, this does not necessarily mean their child would receive their final EHC Plan any sooner. The Council did not tell Mrs X this, or that it would not reimburse her even if it used the private advice in W’s final EHC Plan. This was fault and meant Mrs X paid for the assessment when she likely would not have done so had the Council given her the necessary information to make an informed choice. I have therefore recommended the Council reimburse Mrs X.
29. As the Council has already taken steps to prevent similar fault in future, as set out at paragraph 18 above, I have not recommended further action.

Action

30. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions:
1. Pay Mrs X £250 to recognise her frustration and uncertainty.
2. Pay Mrs X £350 to recognise the impact of W’s lost special educational provision.
3. Reimburse Mrs X for the cost of the private Educational Psychologist advice, providing she can evidence that cost.
31. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman