The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We found fault with the Council delaying for 18 months outside the statutory timescales in completing Mr X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan Needs Assessment. The Council agreed to provide a symbolic payment to Mr X to address the distress and frustration he experienced and the potential missed support for his child.
The complaint
Mr X complained the Council took nearly three years to finalise his child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
Mr X says his child has missed three years of suitable education and social interaction with other children because of suspensions, exclusions and part-time education. Mr X said this was caused by a lack of support from the Education, Health and Care Plan.
Mr X says this has also caused him stress and distress through having to manage his child’s time off school.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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) We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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) The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6) 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) 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) Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision statement with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
What I have and have not investigated I have investigated Mr X’s complaint from December 2023 until September 2025.
Mr X brought his complaint to the attention of the Ombudsman in May 2025. The Ombudsman can investigate all matters back to May 2024. I have exercised my discretion to investigate matters back to December 2023 because the investigated fault begins from this date. I have not investigated any matters before this date because this is separable from the ongoing issues outlined in this complaint. Mr X could have brought such matters to the attention of the Ombudsman sooner if he had concerns about this. I have referenced some information before December 2023 for context but have not made any findings on any potential fault before this date.
I have ended my investigation from September 2025. This is because the Council issued a Final Education, Health and Care Plan for Mr X’s child in June 2025. This gave Mr X appeal rights about the content of the Education, Health and Care Plan, including his child’s educational placement. It would be appropriate for Mr X to exercise such appeal rights if he disagreed with the educational placement named from September 2025. The Council also issued its stage two complaint response to Mr X in September 2025. This means the Council has not had opportunity to consider and respond to any issues after this date. Should Mr X have concerns after September 2025, this would be the subject of a new complaint with the Council first.
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made a final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance EHC Plan A child or young person with special educational needs may have an 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.
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.
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); As part of the assessment, councils must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). This includes: the child’s educational placement; medical advice and information from health care professionals involved with the child; psychological advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP); social care advice and information; advice and information from any person requested by the parent or young person, where the council considers it reasonable; and any other advice and information the council considers appropriate for a satisfactory assessment.
Those consulted have a maximum of six weeks to provide the advice.
Section 19 duty Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that councils 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.
Establishing a section 19 duty 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.
Councils should consider any attempts the school is making to support the child. This might involve sending work home for the child to complete, arranging disability related support, placing the child on a reduced timetable, or providing online education as a short-term measure. If there is a clear, effective, and time-bound plan for reintegration then there may be no immediate role for the council in providing alternative education.
Good practice guidance We publish good practice guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to identify and arrange alternative educational provision: Supporting children out of school (October 2025) Our guidance says that councils should: consider all the reasons for a child’s absence from school, and make a written evidence-based decision about whether it will arrange alternative education provision; communicate this decision as a matter of good practice to parents and where it decides not to arrange alternative education tell parents the expectations about school attendance, and the potential consequences for continued absences; ensure the provision meets the individual needs of the child where it decides to arrange alternative education and explain its reasons for providing a part-time education if it decides the child cannot cope with full time provision; keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing when the child is able; work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to their normal educational setting as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary; and ensure effective channels of communication between parents, internal teams, and external bodies (such as schools, and the NHS) so that issues are dealt with promptly by the right people, and that any complaints are identified and responded to under the relevant policy.
Where councils arrange for schools or other bodies to carry out their functions on their behalf, the council remains responsible. Therefore councils should retain oversight and control to ensure their duties are properly fulfilled.
What happened Background information In August 2023, Mr X made an EHC Plan Needs Assessment request to the Council.
In September 2023, Mr X’s child’s, Y’s, educational placement put Y on a part-time timetable. The Council agreed to this timetable.
Matters relevant to this complaint In January 2024, the Educational Psychologist provided the Council with their input for Y’s EHC Plan assessment. This input outlined much of the support Y would need.
The Council agreed to an extension of Y’s part-time timetable following a review and set a further review date for March 2024.
In February 2024, Y’s draft EHC Plan confirmed Y was on a part-time timetable which included two days of alternative provision of education each week and reduced time spent at the school.
Y’s school excluded Y in February 2024. The following day, Y started a new school placement on a full-time basis with provision of 1:1 or 2:1 support.
In January 2025, Mr X raised a formal complaint with the Council. Mr X said the Council had not completed the EHC Plan Needs Assessment process for Y and Y had been attending a temporary school for a long time.
The Council provided a stage one complaint response in February 2025. The Council acknowledged its delay and lack of communication for Y’s EHC Plan.
In March 2025, the Council produced a draft EHC Plan for Y. This draft EHC Plan included input from Y’s school which confirmed Y had become less dysregulated since starting at the school.
Following consultations, in April 2025, Y had taster sessions at a school which resulted in an acceptance of a placement for Y from September 2025.
In June 2025, the Council produced a final EHC Plan for Y which named their new educational placement from September 2025. The Council sent a letter to Mr X confirming his right to appeal the EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal.
In September 2025, Mr X sought consideration of his complaint at stage two. Mr X said it had taken the Council nearly three years to produce Y’s EHC Plan, Y had missed a lot of education and this matter had caused both him and Y stress.
The Council issued a stage two complaint response five days following receipt of Mr X’s escalation request. The Council acknowledged it had delayed outside the statutory timescales and apologised for this. The Council said it had made service improvements to try to reduce its EHC Plan assessment timescales.
Analysis EHC Plan Needs Assessment Following Mr X’s request for an EHC Plan Needs Assessment for Y in August 2023, the Council had until December 2023 to produce a Final EHC Plan, given its decision to issue a plan.
As part of Y’s EHC Plan Needs Assessment, the Council had a duty to get advice from relevant professionals; this included an Educational Psychologist. The Educational Psychologist only provided their advice in January 2024. This meant the Council did not get Educational Psychologist advice in time to produce Y’s final EHC Plan within the statutory timescales; this was a service failure.
The Council’s delay in getting Educational Psychologist advice caused a delay of one month outside the statutory timescales for production of Y’s EHC Plan. This would have caused Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty.
After the Council received the Educational Psychologist advice, the Council took too long to finalise Y’s EHC Plan. With Educational Psychologist advice available, the Council should have issued the Final EHC Plan in less than eight weeks, taking account of the timescales set out in the Code. This includes time to: write a draft EHC Plan; issue it to the family and give them 15 days to consider the draft EHC plan and provide their comments; and 15 days for the education establishment to comment.
The overall guidance is that final plans should be issued as quickly as possible.
The Council was already outside the statutory timescales when it received the Educational Psychologist advice. The Council took a further one year and five months to finalise Y’s EHC Plan once it received the advice in January 2024; this was fault. The Educational Psychologist’s recommendations are reflected in the Section F provision outlined in Y’s EHC Plan. This means the Council’s fault directly caused a delay of one year and five months to Y receiving the provision in their EHC Plan.
Access to education Mr X complained the Council did not provide suitable education for Y.
From December 2023 to February 2024, Y was enrolled at a school which had put in place a part-time timetable for Y. As part of this part-time timetable, Y spent some time at the school and two days per week at alternative provision of education. The Council was aware of the reduced timetable put in place the school, had agreed to this reduced timetable and alternative provision of education and had active reviews in place for this provision.
While Y was not accessing full-time education in school from December 2023 to February 2024, the Council played an active role in Y’s part-time timetable of education. The Council took suitable steps to agree to and review Y’s access to education and in doing so decided this was suitable and accessible education for Y. I do not find fault with the Council.
From February 2024 until July 2025, Y attended a new school placement on a full-time basis. The Council ensured Y had access to full-time education, which Y attended above 95%. The Council did not need to consider any access to alternative provision of education for Y in the circumstances. I do not find fault with the Council.
The Council named a new school placement for Y from September 2025, as part of Y’s Final EHC Plan in June 2025. In doing so, the Council considered this school was suitable and accessible education for Y. The Council named this school following consultation and taster sessions with Y. Should Mr X have disagreed with this school placement, he could have appealed this to the SEND Tribunal.
Service improvements In the Council’s stage two complaint response it outlined it had made service improvements to address the delays in its EHC Plan Needs Assessment process.
The Council has shown that in 2024 it was only finalising 4.87% of EHC Plans within the statutory timescales. This increased to 10.78% in 2025 and 24.54% in 2026 so far.
I am satisfied the service improvements the Council put in place has made a noticeable difference to the timeliness of its EHC Plan Needs Assessments. The data provided by the Council shows an improving trend. It is expected that it will take time to bring about full compliance with the statutory timescales and further recommendations of service improvements by the Ombudsman would not expedite this. For this reason, I have not made any service improvements.
Action
Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council will: Pay Mr X £100 to acknowledge the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused to him by the Council’s one month delay in issuing Y with an Education, Health and Care Plan caused by the delay in obtaining advice from an Educational Psychologist; and Pay Mr X £3,400 to recognise Mr X’s child’s loss of opportunity to receive provision in line with their Education, Health and Care Plan between January 2024 and June 2025 caused by the delay in issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan after it had obtained Educational Psychologist advice.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Decision There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman