What happens if a local authority misses the 20-week deadline?

The breach, in plain terms

Missing the 20-week deadline to issue a final EHC plan is unlawful unless a limited statutory exception applies; the remedy is judicial review, not a SEND Tribunal appeal. The duty sits in regulation 13(2) of the SEND Regulations 2014: the authority must send the finalised plan as soon as practicable, and in any event within 20 weeks of receiving the request for an EHC needs assessment. The clock runs from the date the request was received, not the date it was logged or acknowledged, so a late start does not buy back time at the end.

The only lawful exceptions

Regulation 13(3) allows the time limit to be missed only where it is impractical for one of the four narrow reasons in regulation 10(4). They are tightly drawn, and a backlog is not among them.

• A school or post-16 institution whose advice is needed is closed for a continuous period of at least four weeks.
• An early years provider whose advice is needed is closed for at least four weeks.
• Exceptional personal circumstances affecting the child, the parent or the young person.
• Absence from the area: the child, parent or young person is away from the authority's area for at least four weeks in a row.

If none of these is engaged, the authority is in breach. Staffing shortages, panel backlogs and outstanding professional advice are not lawful excuses. The High Court has confirmed the timescales are mandatory and that a lack of resources does not displace the duty (R (JSC) v Cambridgeshire CC, 2026; R (W) v Hertfordshire CC, 2023).

What the breach does and does not trigger

There is no automatic penalty and no right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal for delay on its own. The Tribunal hears disputes about a refusal to assess, a refusal to issue, or the content of a plan once made; it cannot order an authority to hit a deadline. A parent's enforcement route runs the other way.

• Complaint: a dated written complaint to the SEN team setting out the breach and asking for an issue date.
• The Ombudsman: escalation to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, which can find injustice and recommend an apology, service changes and a financial remedy.
• Judicial review: usually a pre-action protocol letter giving a short window to issue the plan, then a High Court claim to compel it. Faced with a clear duty and no lawful excuse, most authorities issue rather than defend.

Why it matters for the authority

A delayed plan does not dilute the duties that follow it. Once the plan is finalised, the authority is under an absolute duty to secure the special educational provision specified in Section F (section 42 of the Children and Families Act 2014), and lateness is no defence to that. If a child is out of school as a result of the delay, the section 19 duty to arrange suitable alternative education may also be engaged. The exposure is therefore twofold: the breach itself, and the continuing duties the plan crystallises.

As of 2026 this is the law in full. The schools White Paper and the Education for All Bill propose Individual Support Plans and narrowing EHCPs to the most complex needs by 2035, but nothing takes effect before September 2030 and existing plan-holders are protected. The 20-week duty applies in full today.

This page is general information, not clinical or legal advice.