Summary: The Ombudsman has decided to stop investigating this complaint about the Council’s decision to reduce the amount it will pay for Mrs X’s son to have Speech and Language Therapy. During our investigation, the Council agreed to continue paying for Mrs X’s son to see the same Speech and Language Therapist. This was the outcome sought by Mrs X, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council decided to reduce the amount if would pay for her son’s Speech and Language Therapy. She says that because of this, she has had to pay the shortfall between the amount the Council will pay and the amount the therapist charges.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to continue with an investigation if we believe it is unlikely further investigation will lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I have:
• considered the complaint and the documents provided by the complainant;
• discussed the issues with the complainant;
• considered the Council’s responses to my colleague’s enquiries about the complaint; and
• given the Council and the complainant the opportunity to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

4. Mr and Mrs X have seven-year-old twin sons. They both have special educational needs.
5. The Council told Mr and Mrs X that it would no longer pay the amount charged by the Speech and Language Therapist who was supporting one of their sons. It said that it would give them a personal budget instead.
6. In July 2018, Mr and Mrs X complained to the Council that the personal budget was not enough for them to continue using the same Speech and Language Therapist. They said that their son had made amazing progress with this therapist and they explained why they considered continuity was important for their son.
7. Mr and Mrs X decided to pay the difference between the amount the Council had agreed to pay (£41 a session) and the amount their son’s Speech and Language Therapist charged (£70 a session).
8. When the Council did not respond to their complaint, Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman. We contacted the Council and it agreed to respond to Mr and Mrs X’s complaint by 23 November 2018.
9. Mrs X contacted us again in September 2019 because they had not received a written response to their complaint. When we contacted the Council, it explained that when it originally received the complaint, it wrongly believed it related to similar issues that it was already dealing with at the second stage of its complaints procedure. It said that it became apparent that this was not the case, and the complaint it was dealing with at stage two related to Mr and Mrs X’s other son and concerned different issues. The Council accepted that it had not responded to this complaint and said that it was deeply apologetic for this.
10. The Council investigated the matter and discovered that it had continued to pay the full amount charged by the Speech and Language Therapist. The Council says that it will continue to fund the sessions in full. It has also offered to make a payment of £250 to Mr and Mrs X to recognise the time and trouble they have been put to pursuing their complaint.
11. I do not consider there is any benefit in continuing our investigation because the Council has agreed to provide the outcome Mrs X sought, which was to pay for her son to continue working with the same Speech and Language Therapist. Mrs X says that the Council does not need to also make the payment of £250.

Final decision

12. I have decided to stop investigating this complaint because nothing more could be achieved by further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman