Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to carry out the Education, Health and Care (EHC) assessment process for her daughter, within statutory timescales. The Council was at fault. It did not complete the EHC assessment process and issue the final EHC Plan with statutory timescales. It also did not properly consider its section 19 duty. Because of the fault, Mrs X suffered distress, frustration and uncertainty. Her daughter also lost the opportunity to receive the support in her EHC Plan sooner. The Council will make a symbolic payment to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council has failed to complete an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment for her daughter, who I will refer to as Y, within the statutory timescale.
2. As a result, Mrs X says Y has missed out on support she would have had in place sooner but for the Council’s delays, which has impacted Y’s transfer to secondary school. Mrs X also says she has suffered distress and her family life has been impacted.
3. The Council has now issued a final EHC Plan for Y since Mrs X brought her complaint to us, but Mrs X would like the Council to offer an appropriate remedy for the injustice caused to her and Y.

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 November 2024 when Mrs X asked the Council to carry out an EHC needs assessment for Y, to mid-to-late May 2026 when the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan. I reference matters outside of these dates for context.
10. Mrs X had a right of appeal to the Tribunal in mid-to-late May 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 Mrs X’s complaint and considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. 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

EHC Plan 

13. 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. 
14. 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 

15. 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 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);  

Advice and Information for EHC needs assessments

16. As part of the assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). This includes psychological advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP).

Section 19 duty

17. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that the council must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child. The alternative educational provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.
18. If a council discovers a child is absent from school for an extended period, it should consider the reasons for this, and take account of evidence from relevant parties (such as the child’s school, parents, and medical professionals). It must then decide whether it has a duty to make alternative educational provision.

Back to top

What happened

19. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
20. Mrs X asked the Council to carry out an EHC needs assessment for Y in late November 2024. The Council sent Mrs X its decision not to assess Y in mid-to-late December 2024. Mrs X’s request was reconsidered at panel in mid-February 2025. The Council’s decision remained the same and Mrs X asked for mediation, which happened in late March 2025. The Council agreed to assess Y at panel in mid-April 2025.
21. In mid-October 2025, Mrs X told the Council Y’s transfer to secondary school had not been successful and she was not attending school or accessing education. She asked the Council to arrange alternative provision for Y. The Council told Mrs X it had arranged for Y’s school to be contacted to explore her request for alternative provision.
22. The Council received the EP report in late January 2026. It decided to issue an EHC Plan for Y in May 2026, and it issued a final EHC Plan that same month. Y started at a specialist school in June 2026.
23. Mrs X has complained to the Council about its delays in the EHC assessment process and the lack of alternative provision offered to Y. The Council has:
• Apologised to Mrs X for its delays in the EHC assessment process.
• Explained to Mrs X EP capacity and workload issues have contributed to the delays.
• Offered £500 to acknowledge the above.
• Explained to Mrs X it expected Y’s school to arrange suitable alternative provision, and it apologised that it did not do so. However, the Council told Mrs X it upholds the complaint as the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that suitable education is arranged lies with the Council.
• Offered a further £250 to acknowledge the distress caused by the further delays in the issuing of Y’s final EHC Plan.

Back to top

Analysis

24. The Council reversed its initial decision and agreed to assess Y on 17 April 2025. This restarted the process at week six, so the Council had a remaining 14 weeks to finish the process, as it decided to issue an EHC Plan. So, the Council should have issued Y’s final EHC Plan no later than 24 July 2025. It did not do this. The Council issued the final EHC Plan on 20 May 2026. This is a delay of roughly 43 weeks. This was fault.
25. We take the view that councils must abide by statutory and legislative requirements under the SEN legislation and guidance. The Council’s failure to meet the required timescales has caused Mrs X and Y distress and frustration, and the wait for the final EHC Plan delayed her right of appeal to the Tribunal until the Council issued the final EHC Plan in May 2026.
26. The Council’s delays in the EHC process and the issuing of Y’s final EHC Plan also meant there was a delay in Y receiving the support outlined in section F of her EHC Plan, which impacted her ability to engage with learning. Had the Council issued Y’s EHC Plan in line with statutory timescales, she would have had the EHC Plan in place for the start of term in September 2025, in time for her transfer to secondary school. Due to the delays, Y lost the opportunity to receive this support that she should have had in place sooner, and it has caused uncertainty to Mrs X about the provision Y would receive, and whether having this support in place sooner would have helped her engagement with learning.
27. We recognise the national shortage of EPs available to complete reports for EHC needs assessments, leading to delays in the rest of the EHC process. Our current approach is to remedy the injustice caused by this by recommending a symbolic payment of £100 per month from the date the final EHC Plan should have been issued, to the date the Council received the EP report. The Council has offered Mrs X a total of £750 to acknowledge the injustice caused to her by the delays in the EHC process and in the issuing of Y’s final EHC Plan. Given the circumstances of this case, and the approach we usually take outlined above, I consider £750 is appropriate to acknowledge the injustice caused by the Council’s delays.
28. However, Y stopped attending school in early October 2025. Mrs X told the Council about this shortly after and asked it for alternative provision for Y. So, at this point the Council should have considered whether it had a section 19 duty to provide suitable alternative provision. Instead, when Mrs X asked the Council for alternative provision, the Council placed the responsibility of alternative provision on Y’s school and told Mrs X it would ask the school to explore her request.
29. It is the Council’s responsibility to decide whether it has a duty to make alternative provision, which it has acknowledged. But, the Council did not properly consider whether it had a section 19 duty to provide Y with alternative provision when it was made aware she had stopped attending school in October 2025. This was fault. This causes uncertainty to Mrs X about whether the Council would have provided alternative provision to Y and what alternative provision she might have lost the opportunity to receive, had the Council properly considered its section 19 duty when it was informed Y was out of school. I have made a recommendation to reflect this.
30. I have not recommended the Council apologise to Mrs X, as it has already done so in its complaint responses which is appropriate. I have also not made service improvement recommendations in this case. This is because the Council has an action plan to improve its SEND service. We will continue to monitor the progress of the plan and identify any trends through our casework and will make service improvement recommendations where appropriate.
31. 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.
32. 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

33. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mrs X and Y by the fault I have identified, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Pay Mrs X £350 for the injustice caused to her and Y by the Council’s failure to properly consider its section 19 duty in October 2025 when it was informed Y had stopped attending school.
• The Council has already paid Mrs X the £500 it offered to her in its complaint response dated 31 October 2025 to acknowledge the injustice caused by the delays in the EHC process. If it has not done so already, the Council will also pay Mrs X the £250 it offered to her in its most recent complaint response for the further delays.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I uphold Mrs X’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