Summary: Mr X and Mrs Z complained the Council failed to complete the Education, Health and Care (EHC) assessment process and issue their son’s final EHC Plan within statutory timescales. They also complained about the Council’s communication and complaint-handling. The Council was at fault. There were delays in its EHC assessment process and in the issuing of the final EHC Plan. The Council’s communication was also poor, and its response to Mr X and Mrs Z’s stage two complaint was delayed. Because of this, they suffered distress, frustration and a delayed right of appeal. Their son also missed provisions and support. The Council will make symbolic payments and send us evidence of actions it will take to improve delays.

The complaint

1. Mr X and Mrs Z complain the Council failed to complete the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process and issue an EHC Plan for their son, who I will refer to as Y, within statutory timescales. They also complain there has been complaint-handling delays by the Council and its communication has been poor.
2. As a result, Mr X and Mrs Z says they, Y and their family have suffered distress. They say Y has also missed out on provision and support he should have had in place sooner, which has impacted his ability to engage with learning and means he has fallen behind his peers.
3. Mr X and Mrs Z would like the Council to apologise, offer a financial remedy, and make service improvements.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 future we may recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I have investigated matters in this case from late December 2024, when Mr X and Mrs Z sent their request for an EHC needs assessment for Y to the Council, to late January 2026 when the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan.
10. Mr X and Mrs Z had a right of appeal to the Tribunal in late January 2026 when the Council issued the final EHC Plan. As such, I have not investigated any matter after this point, for the reason outlined in paragraph 5.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I read Mr X and Mrs Z’s complaint and spoke to them about it on the phone.
12. I considered evidence provided by Mr X, Mrs Z, and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mr X, Mrs Z 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

EHC Plan 

14. 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. 
15. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. This includes section F, which sets out the special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 

Timescales and process for EHC assessment 

16. 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 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). 

Back to top

What happened

17. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
18. Mr X and Mrs Z sent their request for an EHC needs assessment for Y to the Council in late December 2024. They complained to the Council in early February 2025, as six weeks had passed since their request and it had not decided whether it would assess Y.
19. The Council sent its decision to assess Y to Mr X and Mrs Z in mid-to-late February 2025. It also responded to their complaint at the end of that month. The Council told Mr X and Mrs Z there were delays within the team, and it apologised for its delay in sending them the Council’s decision to assess Y.
20. Mr X and Mrs Z complained to the Council again in mid-May 2025. They told it they were unhappy that the EHC Plan should have been issued by that point, but the delays were ongoing. They told the Council the delays were impacting Y’s engagement with learning.
21. Mr X and Mrs Z chased the Council for a complaint response and an update about the EHC process in mid-June 2025. They chased the Council again at the start of July 2025 and expressed their dissatisfaction with the Council’s lack of communication.
22. The Council responded to Mr X and Mrs Z’s complaint in late September 2025. It told them:
• The Council apologises for its complaint-handling delays and explained this was due to staffing and capacity issues. It offered Mr X and Mrs Z £150 for this.
• The Council apologises for the delays in the EHC process. It told Mr X and Mrs Z once Y’s EHC Plan was finalised, it would consider what support he might have missed and consider a remedy for this.
23. The Council issued Y’s draft EHC Plan in early January 2026. It issued the final EHC Plan at the end of that month.

Back to top

Analysis

24. The Council has acknowledged the delays in this case. Mr X and Mrs Z requested an EHC needs assessment in late December 2024. So, the Council should have decided whether to assess Y by early February 2025. The Council did not do this. It sent Mr X and Mrs Z its decision to assess in mid-to-late February 2025, around two weeks after the six-week statutory timeframe.
25. The Council went on to issue an EHC Plan for Y. As such, it should have issued the final EHC Plan within 20 weeks of Mr X and Mrs Z’s initial request, so by mid-May 2025. The Council did not do this. It issued Y’s final EHC Plan at the end of January 2026, around eight and a half months after the 20-week statutory timescale.
26. We take the view councils must abide by the statutory and legislative requirements under the SEN legislation and guidance. The Council’s failure to meet the required timescales was fault. The delay caused Mr X and Mrs Z distress and frustration and delayed their right of appeal to the Tribunal.
27. The Council’s delays in the EHC process and issuing of Y’s final EHC Plan also meant there was a delay in Y receiving the provision and support outlined in section F of his EHC Plan, which has impacted his learning. Section F of Y’s EHC Plan includes one-to-one speech and language therapy (SaLT) sessions, and programmes for movement and fine motor skills. It also includes one-to-one interventions for language and emotional literacy skills, as well as various other teaching staff support and adaptations to the curriculum. But for the delay, Y would have benefitted from this additional provision and support sooner and helped his ability to engage with learning.
28. The Council responded to Mr X and Mrs Z’s stage one complaint on time, in line with the 15 working days outlined in its complaint procedure. The complaint procedure says the Council will respond at stage two of the procedure within 20 working days. Mr X and Mrs Z raised their stage two complaint in mid-May 2025, so the Council should have sent its stage two response to them by early-to-mid June 2025. It did not do this. The Council sent Mr X and Mrs Z its stage two complaint response towards the end of September 2025, a little under three and a half months after its 20 working-day timeframe. This was fault.
29. The Council was not timely when responding to Mr X and Mrs Z’s communications and their stage two complaint, which meant they continued to chase the Council for updates. Mr X and Mrs Z were already under significant pressure due to other failings by the Council, and its poor communication and delay in its handling of Mr X and Mrs Z’s stage two complaint caused them additional frustration.
30. During our consideration of Mr X and Mrs Z’s complaint, the Council told us it would like to offer them £400 for its delay in finalising Y’s EHC Plan, and £200 for its lack of communication and delay in decision-making. The £200 the Council has offered is suitable to acknowledge the frustration caused to Mr X and Mrs Z by its stage two complaint-handling delay and poor communication. However, in the circumstances of this case, the £400 the Council has suggested for the EHC delays is not sufficient to remedy the level of injustice caused to Mr X, Mrs Z and Y by its fault. I have made recommendations below to reflect this.
31. I have not recommended the Council apologise to Mr X and Mrs Z, as it has already apologised in its complaint response for its EHC and complaint-handling delays, which is appropriate.
32. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive, and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
33. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred.

Back to top

Action

34. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr X, Mrs Z and Y by the fault I have identified, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Pay Mr X £250 to acknowledge the injustice caused to him and Mrs Z as outlined in paragraph 26, by the Council’s delays in the EHC process and issuing of the Y’s final EHC Plan.
• Pay Mr X £1,800 to acknowledge the missed additional provision and support Y would have received sooner, as outlined in paragraph 27, had the Council issued his EHC Plan within the statutory timescale.
• Pay Mr X £200 to acknowledge the injustice caused to him and Mrs Z as outlined in paragraph 29, by the Council’s complaint-handling delay and poor communication. I note the Council offered Mr X £150 directly to acknowledge such in its stage two response. If the Council paid this to Mr X at the time, it should deduct this from the £200 we recommend, and pay Mr X £50, so as not to “double remedy” the same injustice.
35. Within three months of my final decision, the Council will also send us evidence of action it is taking to prevent delays and improve its EHC assessment process timeliness. This will help to ensure the Council is taking adequate steps to prevent delays going forward and meet its duty to carry out EHC needs assessments and issue EHC Plans within statutory timescales.
36. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I uphold Mr X and Mrs Z’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman