Judge declares council acted unlawfully by failing to complete EHC needs assessment within timeframe

In Jsc (A Child, By Her Litigation Friend, Jkc), R (On the Application Of) v Cambridgeshire County Council [2026] EWHC 68 (Admin) (19 January 2026), the claimant had obtained, through the use of freedom of information requests, figures that indicated the council had exceeded the statutory deadlines for EHC assessments in around 1,800 cases.

The judge, Duncan Atkinson KC, held that those figures demonstrated this to be “a substantial and systematic issue”.

The case concerned an 11-year-old child residing in the defendant council’s area. She is diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder ('ASD') and extreme anxiety.

Her primary school identified this special educational need, and requested an Education, Health and Care ('EHC') Needs Assessment on 2 April 2025.

On 29 May 2025, the council notified the claimant's litigation friend, who is her primary carer, that it would proceed with that assessment.

The judge noted: “Under the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 ('SEND Regulations'), the Defendant had to decide whether to issue an EHC plan within 16 weeks of one being requested, and to finalise that plan within 20 weeks of that request.”

The judge accepted that the council “failed to meet either deadline”.

He said: “Indeed, it was not until after the claimant, through her litigation friend, had applied for permission to challenge that failure by judicial review that, on 21 October 2025, the Defendant made the decision not to issue an EHC plan in this Claimant's case. In other words, it made that decision 12 weeks and 6 days beyond the statutory deadline.”

In consequence of that decision, the claimant no longer pursued her original application for mandatory relief.

However, she maintained her application for declaratory relief, seeking a declaration that the council acted unlawfully by failing to complete the EHC Needs Assessment, and to reach a decision as to whether to issue an EHC Plan within the statutory timescales.

Considering the case, the judge said: “Regulation 10(1) mandates that, following an EHC Needs Assessment, the Local Authority must decide whether an EHC Plan is necessary and notify the child's parent or the young person of that decision within 16 weeks from the date the request for the assessment was received.

“That date in this case would have been 23 July 2025, the request having been made on 2 April 2025. The Regulation provides, at 10(4), the limited exceptions to the time limit. These include the missing by the child of an appointment for the assessment or their absence from the area of the relevant local authority's responsibility. The reasons given by the Defendant here, in relation to the limited numbers of available child psychologists do not fall within any of the exceptions.”

Turning to the issue of declaratory relief, the judge noted: “The starting point for considering whether a court should permit a party to pursue an academic point in a public law case is the classic statement of Lord Slynn of Hadley in R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Salem [1999] I AC 450 (at p.456):

"… I accept, …, that in case where there is an issue involving a public authority as to questions of public law, your Lordships have a discretion to hear the appeal, even if by the time the appeal reaches the House, there is no longer a lis to be decided which will directly affect the rights and obligations of the parties inter se … The discretion to hear disputes, even in the area of public law, must be exercised with caution and appeals which are academic between the parties should not be heard unless there is good reason in the public interest for doing so as for example (but only by way of example) where a discrete point of statutory construction which does not involve detailed consideration of the facts, and where large number of similar cases exist or are anticipated so that the issue will most likely need to be resolved in the near future."”

The council submitted that the claimant could only rely on the “wider public interest”, by reference to the complaints made by others, if those others were joined as claimants or at least interested parties to the present claim and/or if the claimant had amended the claim to encompass them.

The evidence on which the claimant sought to rely on was divided into the following categories by the judge:

1. Letters from the council to others seeking EHC assessment;
2. Letters before action from those now representing the claimant in relation to such others;
3. A response from the council to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act; and
4. Evidence derived from the council’s correspondence to this claimant.

In the first category, the claimant included in the bundle seven letters sent on the council’s behalf in response to complaints made as to the progress of requests for EHC assessment and/or the issuing of EHC Plans.

In the second category, the claimant included in the bundle 20 letters before action issued by those representing the present claimant against the defendant in relation to cases in which the timescales in the SEND Regulations have not been met.

Counsel for the defendant contended that the material in these two categories contained private and personal information relating to a number of children, and reliance upon it could only properly occur where there is consent from the parents or guardians of the children in question to its use.

For this reason, the judge did not take the material in these two categories into account in determining whether it would be in the public interest to grant the declaratory relief sought.

In relation to the third category, the judge said: “The position is different in relation to the third category. This relates to the Defendant's response to a request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 which asked, in relation to the period 2024-2025, for "the number of children currently awaiting an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment? How many EHC Needs assessments have exceeded the 16-week deadline? How many EHC Needs assessments have exceeded the 20-week deadline."”

The answers given by the Defendant, as at 21 November 2025, were as follows:

• The number of children currently awaiting an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment: 2,010
• How many EHC Needs assessments have exceeded the 16-week deadline: 1,733
• How many EHC Needs assessments have exceeded the 20-week deadline: 1,849

The judge acknowledged the figures showed the claimant was “very far from alone in having the assessment process in her case take longer than the mandatory timescales.”

He added: “On the contrary, the figures demonstrate this to be a substantial and systematic issue.”

The final category of material relied on was the evidence of the defendant's own correspondence in the case.

In the email from the Defendant's SEN Casework Officer to the Claimant's litigation friend, in September 2025, the Defendant stated: "I am very sorry that A's needs assessment is taking far longer than it should. This is because the County Council is receiving many more requests for assessment than our Educational Psychology (EP) workforce and the Statutory Assessment Team are able to manage in a timely way".

The judge observed: “This material demonstrates there to be systemic issues resulting in the risk at least of unlawful failures of compliance with the mandatory timescales relating to EHC assessments and the issuance of EHC Plans by the defendant.”

The judge was satisfied that the claimant had an arguable ground for judicial review, and granted permission.

Concluding the case, he said: “I have concluded that it is appropriate to grant the declaratory relief sought in this claimant's case.

“[…] This is not, as [counsel for the claimant] submitted, to "rub a defendant's nose in his admitted breach". It is, rather, to make clear that the Defendant was acting unlawfully when serious prejudice was occasioned to a vulnerable 11-year-old girl, and when it has acted in the same way in a large number of similar cases also relating to vulnerable young people. The declaration therefore both identifies past unlawful conduct, deters such conduct in the future and vindicates the Claimant's rights.

“Accordingly, I do make the declaration sought by the Claimant, namely: "The Defendant acted unlawfully by failing to complete the Claimant's EHC Needs Assessment and decide whether to issue an EHC Plan within 16 weeks of the request, contrary to Regulation 10 of the SEND Regulations 2014".”

Lottie Winson