Summary: Miss H complains the Council and Trust significantly delayed her son J’s Education, Health and Care Plan annual review, and J did not receive the 1-1 speech and language therapy sessions in his plan. There was fault by the Council and Trust. There were long delays in the annual review process, and in the response to Miss H’s complaint. The Council failed to ensure J received the speech and language education provision in his plan. This has caused an injustice as J has missed out on educational provision in his plan, and Miss H has suffered stress and upset. The Council and Trust have agreed to apologise, pay a financial remedy to Miss H, complete the annual review and make improvements to their services.

The complaint

1. Miss H complains the Sheffield City Council and Sheffield Children’s NHS Foundation Trust have delayed her son J’s Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) annual review. She complains the Council has failed to ensure J receives the 1-1 speech and language therapy in his EHC Plan since September 2020. She says the Trust’s speech and language therapy (SALT) assessments do not adequately capture J’s needs, and the SALT did not share her updated assessment before the July 2021 annual review meeting.
2. Miss H says the delays in completing the annual review and issuing an updated EHC Plan mean she has not been able to appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (the SEND Tribunal) about J’s SALT provision. Miss H says the Council has made little effort to deal with her complaint and there have been long delays by the Trust.
3. Miss H says J has lost EHC provision and she has suffered stress, upset and sleepless nights. She wants J to receive the SALT provision in his EHC Plan, and the Council to issue his updated EHC Plan including the 1-1 SALT she believes he needs. She also wants the organisations to acknowledge their failings and apologise.

Back to top

What I have investigated

4. I have investigated events up to 14 October 2021 when Miss H made her complaint to us. To provide context, I have included some events that occurred after October 2021 in the chronology of events.

Back to top

The Ombudsmen’s role and powers

5. The Ombudsmen have the power to jointly consider complaints about health and social care. Since April 2015, we have considered these complaints in a single team acting on behalf of both Ombudsmen. (Local Government Act 1974, section 33ZA, as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA)
6. The Ombudsmen investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. We use the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. If there has been fault, the Ombudsmen consider whether it has caused injustice or hardship (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 3(1) and Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended). If it has, they may suggest a remedy. Our recommendations might include asking the organisation to apologise or to pay a financial remedy, for example, for inconvenience or worry caused. We might also recommend the organisation takes action to stop the same mistakes happening again.
7. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended). The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions about special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision.
8. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
9. The Ombudsmen cannot question whether an organisation’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the organisation reached the decision. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended, and Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, sections 3(4)- 3(7))
10. We make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means we will weigh up the available relevant evidence and base our findings on what we think was more likely to have happened. 
11. If the Ombudsmen are satisfied with the actions or proposed actions of the bodies that are the subject of the complaint, they can complete their investigation and issue a decision statement. (Health Service Commissioners Act 1993, section 18ZA and Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
12. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered:
• information Miss H provided in writing and by phone;
• information the Council and the Trust provided in response to my enquiries;
• relevant law and guidance, as set out below; and
• our guidance on remedies and severity of injustice, available on our websites
14. Miss H, the Council and the Trust had the opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I took all comments into account before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Education Health and Care (EHC) Plans

15. The Children and Families Act 2014, the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and the SEND Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years give councils and NHS organisations information about their duties in relation to EHC plans.
16. A child with special educational needs (SEN) may have an EHC plan. The EHC plan is set out in sections which include:
• Section B: The child or young person’s special educational needs
• Section E: The outcomes sought for the child or the young person
• Section F: The special educational provision required by the child or the young person
17. The Ombudsmen cannot direct changes to the sections of an EHC plan about special educational provision (Section F). Only the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal can do this.
18. Councils have a duty to ensure they deliver the special educational provision set out in Section F of an EHC plan. We can look at complaints about this, such as where support set out in the EHC plan has not been provided, or where there have been delays in the process.
19. EHC plans should reviewed by the council at a minimum every 12 months (the annual review). The annual review will consider the progress towards achieving the outcomes written in the EHC plan and whether anything has changed. The annual review usually brings together all those involved in helping achieve the outcomes written in the EHC plan. The school must prepare and send a report of the review meeting to everyone invited within two weeks of the meeting.
20. After the annual review meeting the Council must decide whether it proposes to keep the EHC plan as it is, amend it, or cease to maintain it. The Council must give its decision about this to the child’s parent or the young person and the school or other institution they attend within four weeks of the meeting.
21. If the Council decides to amend the EHC plan it must do that without delay. It must issue an amendment notice detailing the proposed amendments. The Council must give the parents or young person 15 calendar days to comment on the proposed changes.
22. The Council must issue the final updated EHC plan or decide not to amend the plan as soon as practicable, and within 12 weeks of the annual review meeting. When sending the final amended EHC plan, the council must tell the child’s parent or the young person of their right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal and the time limit for doing so. It must also tell them about the requirement for them to consider mediation if they want to appeal, and about the availability of information, advice and support and disagreement resolution services.
23. In our Focus Report on Education, Health and Care plans (October 2019), we said delay is a factor in most SEND cases we investigate. We recommended that councils have resources and systems in place to meet statutory timescales for EHC assessments and annual reviews. We also recommended councils have systems in place to check that provision in an EHC plan has been secured and is being provided to the child or young person.
24. Section 26 of the Children and Families Act 2014 says councils and their partner commissioning bodies must make arrangements (“joint commissioning arrangements”) about the education, health and care provision to be secured for children who have SEN.
25. Regulation 8 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations (the Regulations) says where a council seeks the cooperation of another organisation in securing an EHC needs assessment, that organisation must comply with the request within six weeks of the date they receive it. An organisation does not need to comply if it is impractical to do so because:
• exceptional circumstances affect the child, the child’s parent or the young person during that six-week period;
• the child, the child’s parent or the young person are absent from the area for a continuous period of not less than four weeks during that six-week period; or
• the child or young person fails to keep an appointment for an examination or test made by the body during that six-week period.
26. The Council for Disabled Children has issued guidance on the Requirements to provide Health Advice within Six Weeks, which is available on its website. This provides guidance for NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups (now called Integrated Care Boards (ICB’s)), on how health providers can meet their obligations in relation to EHC assessments and plans.
27. Our 2019 Focus Report recommended strong partnerships at senior level in health, education and social care, to jointly commission services for EHC assessments and provision, and to address problems and complaints.

Back to top

What happened

28. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a comprehensive account of everything that happened.
29. J is 13 years old and has an Autism Spectrum Condition (autism). He goes to a specialist secondary school for children with autism and communication and interaction difficulties. He has an EHC plan which sets out his needs and how they will be met.

EHC Plan February 2020

30. In February 2020 the Council issued an updated final EHC Plan for J. It included intervention and support for him from a speech and language therapist based at his school, including some 1-1 therapy sessions.
31. In September 2020 the Trust’s Speech and Language Therapy team wrote to parents including Miss H about how it would provide speech and language therapy in specialist schools, due to ever-increasing demands. It said it would identify which children would receive direct input from a speech and language therapist, and some children would not receive a direct service.
32. In October and December 2020 the speech and language therapist at J’s school reviewed him and decided on interventions for him in school. In April 2021 the speech and language therapist assessed J in readiness for his EHC plan annual review, and she prepared a report. The annual review meeting was postponed from April to July at Miss H’s request as she was waiting for an educational psychologist to review J.

Annual review meeting 6 July 2021

33. At the annual review meeting Miss H found out J was not receiving the 1-1 speech and language therapy sessions set out in his EHC plan. The annual review meeting was rescheduled to September and the speech and language therapist agreed to prepare an updated report.
34. On 9 July Miss H complained to the Trust about the annual review meeting and that J had not been having his 1-1 speech and language therapy sessions in school. The Trust and Council agreed to provide a joint response to the complaint. The Council provided information to the Trust to include in the response on 17 August.

Re-convened annual review meeting 14 September 2021

35. The speech and language therapist prepared an updated report and the re‑scheduled annual review meeting happened on 14 September. The school headteacher said the school’s allocated speech and language therapist time had been reduced by half. She said the 1-1 speech and language provision for J could not just be removed from his plan. She said the school would need an updated speech and language therapy report and clear recommendations on what they were expected to provide in place of the 1-1 sessions.
36. The Council received the annual review paperwork from the school in early October and decided the EHC plan would need significant amendments. The school then contacted the Council to say it should put any amendments on hold until the updated speech and language therapy assessment was ready.

Complaint response October 2021

37. The Trust and Council jointly responded to Miss H’s complaint on 25 October. The Trust said:
• It was sorry for the delay in responding to Miss H’s complaint
• It acknowledged it did not send the SALT paperwork to Miss H before the July annual review meeting
• It apologised Miss H was not aware before the July annual review meeting of the changes it was proposing to J’s speech and language therapy
• There had been a lack of clarity about SALT provision before the July annual review
• It had produced an updated speech and language therapy report and this had been considered at a second annual review meeting in September
• School staff were providing support for J, and the SALT was carrying out monitoring and assessment
• An updated EHC plan had been drafted and would be shared with Miss H shortly for comments, before it was sent to the Council’s SEND Team
38. The Council said:
• The school is responsible for telling the Council’s SEND Team if provision in section F of an EHC plan is not being delivered
• The school should seek support to make sure the provision in the plan is provided
• The SEND Team was waiting for annual review paperwork so it could be clear about the discussions that had taken place

Speech and Language Therapy reassessment, November and December 2021

39. There was some disagreement between the school, Council, Trust and Miss H about whether the speech and language therapy team had agreed at the annual review meeting in September to re-assess J or not. To try and resolve the disagreement the SALT Team assessed J again in December and sent the report to Miss H in January 2022. Miss H was unhappy with the updated SALT report, and the Trust arranged a meeting to discuss this in early March. At the meeting the parties agreed the Trust SALT report could be sent to the Council SEND Team as long as the independent SALT report Miss H had obtained was also submitted. This happened on 9 March.

March 2022 to present

40. On 16 March the SALT observed J in school, spoke with his teacher and carried out individual work with him to review his communication skills. The SALT sent a written summary to Miss H and J’s school.
41. Another annual review meeting took place on 10 May, but there were no representatives from the SALT service due to an oversight. The meeting was postponed to 22 June. Miss H did not receive the draft amended EHC plan within four weeks of the meeting, and is still waiting for it.
42. Miss H said J is still not receiving some of the SALT provision in section F of his current EHC plan. The Trust told us it had delivered the SALT input recommended in the January 2022 SALT annual review report. It said “although this is not in line with the input suggested in the EHC Plan it is felt to be clinically appropriate.”

Analysis

Delayed annual review and delay in issuing updated EHC plan

43. The Council issued the EHC plan that is the subject of this complaint on 14 February 2020. The annual review meeting and letter within four weeks should have been completed by 15 February 2021. As of July 2022 (17 months later) this is still ongoing and J does not have an up-to-date EHC plan. As a result, there is still no decision about the SALT provision J needs, and Miss H has not been able to approach the SEND Tribunal about this.
44. I consider there has been fault by the Council and Trust in the delayed annual review process. The Council has not ensured it completed the annual review within the statutory timeframe of 12 months from the previous EHC plan. The fault by the Trust includes not sharing the SALT report with Miss H before the July 2021 annual review meeting, not making Miss H aware of the changes proposed to J’s speech and language therapy, and a lack of clarity about how 1-1 SALT provision would be replaced by interventions by school staff.
45. In its comments to us during our investigation, the Council said it acknowledges there have been issues with the timeliness of annual reviews. It said it is keen to ensure it works with schools to meet statutory timeframes.
46. The Trust said there had been some disagreement about whether the speech and language therapy team had agreed to re-assess J at the annual review meeting in September 2020. It said neither of the two SALT team members at the meeting recalled agreeing to this, but the SALT service did carry out an updated assessment in November to try to resolve the issue. This disagreement or lack of clarity on next steps at the September 2020 annual review meeting appears to have contributed to further delays in the annual review.
47. In the Trust’s evidence, it said the SALT does not always have time to read a child’s EHC plan before the annual review meeting. It said this is due to capacity and workload issues in the SALT service working in specialist schools across the city. This is one of the reasons the July 2020 annual review meeting was stopped, and again has contributed to delays in the annual review.
48. The faults by the Council and Trust have caused Miss H and J an injustice. Miss H has suffered stress, uncertainty and “sleepless nights” as there is still no final decision about the SALT provision J needs. She has not been able to approach the SEND Tribunal about this.

Failure to ensure provision of 1-1 Speech and Language Therapy

49. Councils have a duty to ensure they deliver the special educational provision set out in Section F of an EHC plan. When a council commissions another organisation to provide services on its behalf it remains responsible for those services and for the actions of the organisation providing them.
50. In this case J has not received the 1-1 SALT provision in his plan since September 2020. The Council told us J’s SALT support has not been for as many hours as outlined in his current EHC plan, but “support and provision has been delivered in line with [J’s] assessed needs” from the SALT attached to his school. The Council said as progress has been documented within the annual review and professionals have decided J has made good progress, the Council would not have taken action about this.
51. The Council said it provides funding to a school to deliver provision outlined in the EHC plan of a child. If this funding is not enabling the school to meet the need, the school must send evidence to the Council that shows the delivery / provision and funding is not enough to meet the needs of the child. It said J’s school had not provided this information to the Council in a way that would enable it to effectively commission a custom package of support.
52. I have reviewed the Council’s Local Offer webpage. The Local Offer gives information about education, health and social care services available to children and young people with special educational needs or disabilities in their local area.
53. The Council’s Local Offer webpage includes the document ‘You Said, We Did’ for March 2020 to March 2021. This shows there have been several complaints about children not receiving the provision in their EHC plan. It also highlights problems about the Council not doing annual reviews annually. The Council said:
• It is reviewing the annual review process to make sure it is providing amendment notices in timescale
• It is aiming to bring a quality assurance to all plans and amended plans over the next year and to make sure they are with families within a ‘reasonable timescale’
• It is working with schools to ensure they send annual review paperwork to the Council in a timely way after each review

54. The Local Offer webpage also contains details of concerns about rationing of speech and language therapy services. It noted SALT therapists were not always aware that children have an EHC plan, or what the SALT provision is in the plan. The Council said:
• Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group [now Integrated Care Board] and the Council are working with Sheffield Children Hospital and partners to review SALT services across Sheffield
• It sends EHC plans to therapy teams to embed on their electronic systems with consent from the young person/family. The child/young person who has the EHC plan should also have access to this. Where a therapist has provided evidence and advice, and where there has been no further Tribunal, it is the therapist’s responsibility to log the provision within the case file
55. We made a recommendation in another investigation in November 2021 about the need for the Council to tighten up EHC plan review procedures. The Council wrote to us in January 2022 to say it had reviewed all processes within the service, and made changes to the annual review process to ensure it manages processes within statutory timescales.
56. Having reviewed the relevant evidence, I have concluded it was fault by the Council that it did not ensure J received the 1-1 SALT provision in Section F of his EHC plan which he is legally entitled to. In addition, the failure to meet the statutory timescales for the annual review (outlined above) meant the Council failed to regularly review J’s needs, provision and progress. If the Council had completed the annual review on time, it would have picked up the issues around lack of 1-1 SALT provision sooner.
57. I have not seen any evidence the Council carried out any due diligence to ensure the 1-1 SALT provision was in place for J after it issued the EHC plan in February 2020. Both the school and the SALT service said they had flagged with the Council there was not enough SALT time allocated to provide everything in the EHC plans in place for the children at the school.
58. The Trust told us J’s school was one of several special schools in the area experiencing challenges in delivering SALT to meet the needs of their pupils. The Council told us it knows there is a need for more resource in terms of SALT. It said its commissioning service and the Clinical Commissioning Group (now Integrated Care Board) are working to review service delivery to ensure adequate high-quality support for all children who need SALT input.
59. It is clear the Council and Trust are aware of the difficulties across the local area in the amount of SALT time available to special schools to support children with EHC plans. The Council has also confirmed the issue is being addressed at commissioning level. It is also clear that J is still not receiving the 1-1 SALT set out in his existing EHC plan, and this has been the case since September 2020. The Council has not issued an amended EHC plan, and J is still entitled to this educational provision as set out in the EHC plan dated 14 February 2020. This lack of provision is a significant injustice to J. Miss H is also suffering stress and worry about the potential detrimental impact on J’s educational progress.

Speech and Language Therapy failed to tell Miss H or the Council SEND Team it was not providing 1-1 therapy

60. The evidence I have seen suggests the Council was aware the SALT provision available at the school was reduced and not able to meet the provisions in the EHC plans of the children who attend.
61. At the September 2021 annual review meeting the SALT apologised to Miss H that she had not explained about how the SALT hours were being used. She said she felt J’s needs did not require the help that 1-1 SALT provides, as the school has the experience and skilled staff to support him. At the same meeting, the SALT Team Manager said the school was highly skilled in SALT work, and was already doing what the SALT team had recommended. However, the school headteacher said the school needed the SALT to provide guidance on the programme of activities for J, to be specified in his EHCP.
62. The SALT attached to the school had some direct contact with Miss H – she sent a communication plan in October 2020, again in April 2021, and she also spoke with Miss H in April 2021. My view is the SALT should have told Miss H about not providing J’s 1-1 SALT sessions, as he was not receiving this part of the Section F EHC plan provision he was entitled to. The SALT service should also have clearly told the Council it was stopping providing some of what was in Section F of J’s EHC plan. The Council could then take appropriate action in response to this such as holding an early review of the EHC plan, or amending the plan which would then give Miss H a right to appeal this.
63. This poor communication by the SALT Team has caused an injustice to J and Miss H. Miss H and the Council were unaware J was not having 1-1 SALT therapy for over 10 months. The evidence suggests some alternative strategies were used with J which appear to have supported him to achieve some of his outcomes. However, J remained legally entitled to the 1-1 SALT provision in the plan, and the poor communication about this meant Miss H could not appeal to the SEND Tribunal. This has caused her frustration, time and trouble in pursuing the matter.

Speech and Language Therapy assessments failed to adequately capture J’s needs

64. The evidence from the Trust indicates the SALT attached to J’s school has assessed his needs through classroom observations, discussions with school staff and some liaison with Miss H. I acknowledge Miss H feels the interaction with her has been minimal.
65. The Trust told us J attends a specialist school for autistic children which offers specialised help and support for communication difficulties. It said there is in-class and in-school support, and the SALT believes this support will meet J’s speech and language therapy outcomes. The Trust said there is wider evidence which suggests the needs of autistic children in school settings are best met in the classroom context.
66. The Council said the SALT could assess that J was not needing more 1-1 input as he was making good progress with the support he was already getting.
67. From what I have seen, the SALT team have regularly assessed J’s needs and the SALT team has explained the rationale for proposing changes to the way it delivers SALT support. I appreciate Miss H disagrees with the Trust’s position on whether J needs 1-1 SALT therapy. She can challenge this via the SEND Tribunal once the Council issues J’s updated EHC plan, if she is unhappy with the SALT provision in Section F. I have not seen any evidence that suggests that, in itself, the SALT assessments were not adequate and failed to capture J’s needs.

Speech and Language Therapy annual review assessment not shared before July 2021 annual review meeting

68. The Trust and Council have acknowledged the SALT’s updated assessment from Spring 2021 was not shared with Miss H before the July 2021 annual review meeting. This meant Miss H did not learn about the issues about SALT (lack of 1-1 provision, and proposals to remove some 1-1 provision going forwards) until the annual review meeting itself. The meeting was then stopped due to questions raised on these matters.
69. If the SALT report had been shared before the annual review meeting, Miss H could have contacted the SALT service / Council before the meeting to get more information. She could also have come to the meeting more prepared with questions. This may have meant the organisations could address issues at the July 2021 annual review meeting itself rather than the meeting being stopped and rescheduled for September 2021, two months later.

Complaint handling – delays

70. Miss H said the Council made little effort to deal with her complaint and there were long delays by the Trust. She said she complained on 9 July, and the Council said it would provide a written response by 6 August. She said she chased the Council four times during August and September but heard nothing back. Miss H also said she felt the Council was ignoring her complaint and not doing anything about the ongoing issues about lack of Section F 1-1 SALT provision for her son.
71. The Council told us it sent its response to the Trust on 17 August, to be included in the joint complaint response to Miss H the Trust was leading on. The Trust sent the joint complaint response to Miss H on 25 October. It acknowledged the response was very delayed and it apologised.
72. From the evidence the Council and Trust sent to us, I can see the Trust contacted Miss H on 11 August to extend the timescale to respond to 40 working days (by 3 September), as it needed to discuss some of the issues with J’s school. I can also see the Trust chased the speech and language therapist in late August and early September for her comments on the complaint. Her comments were provided in mid-September, but there was then a further four weeks before the complaint response was finalised and sent to Miss H.
73. I can see that Miss H contacted the Council twice, in late September and mid‑October, to ask about the outstanding complaint response, and that the Council chased the Trust to ask it to provide an update and to send the Trust a copy of the response. The evidence suggests the Trust did not act in response to this until 28 October, over four weeks later.
74. I have not found fault by the Council in how it dealt with Miss H’s complaint. The Council and Trust agreed that the Trust would lead on a joint complaint response from both organisations. With that in mind I would expect the Trust to also take the lead on keeping in touch with Miss H and updating her about any delays. I cannot see any evidence that the Trust did this.
75. The Council sent its part of the complaint response to the Trust around five weeks after Miss H complained, on 17 August. The Trust was still waiting for a response from the speech and language therapist at that point, and then found out from the service that she only worked during term-time. However, I would then have expected the Trust to keep Miss H updated about progress with the investigation, and the reason(s) for the delay. It did not do this. The Trust did apologise for the delay when it sent the complaint response, but it should have kept Miss H informed of progress in the meantime.
76. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Complaint Handling say that to be customer focused, organisations should deal with complaints promptly and sensitively. They should tell the complainant how long they should expect to wait to receive a reply, and should keep the complainant regularly informed about progress and the reasons for any delays. The Trust’s actions in this case were not in line with this, and I have found fault by the Trust in terms of its handling of Miss H’s complaint. This has caused her frustration and upset, and she has been put to time and trouble in following up progress with the Trust should have been proactively updating her.

Agreed action

77. The organisations have agreed to take the actions set out below, to remedy the injustice caused to Miss H and J by their faults.
78. The Council will, within one month of this decision:
1. Apologise to Miss H and J for the faults I have identified
2. Secure J’s 1-1 SALT provision as listed in his current EHC plan
3. Complete the annual review process and issue an amended EHC plan for J, and advise Miss H of her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal
4. Pay Miss H £250 to recognise the distress and uncertainty the Council’s fault has caused her, including the loss of opportunity to appeal to the SEND Tribunal
5. Pay Miss H £150 to recognise the time and trouble she has spent in pursuing her complaint
6. Pay Miss H £300 to recognise the 1-1 SALT provision J lost between September 2020 and July 2022. Miss H should use this payment for the benefit of J’s education
7. Pay Miss H £1250 in recognition of the fault resulting in loss of education provision. Miss H should use this money for the benefit of J’s education. We consider this amount to be a suitable remedy considering the provision in J’s plan, his stage of education and the wider SALT provision in place for him at school
79. The Trust will, within one month of this decision:
1. Apologise to Miss H and J for the faults I have identified
2. Pay Miss H £250 to recognise the distress and uncertainty the Trust’s fault has caused her
3. Pay Miss H £150 to recognise the time and trouble she has spent in pursuing her complaint
4. Pay Miss H £200 to recognise the 1-1 SALT provision J lost between September 2020 and July 2022. Miss H should use this payment for the benefit of J’s education
80. To improve services to Miss H and other families, the organisations have agreed to take the following action within three months of this decision. They will write to Miss H and to us to confirm the action taken, and how this should prevent a recurrence of the faults in this case.
81. The Council will:
1. review its processes to ensure it amends and issues EHC plans following an annual review in line with statutory timescales and the requirements of the Code
2. review its procedures for carrying out interim / emergency reviews of EHC plans, in line with the requirements of the Code
3. ensure the Council has a mechanism in place for checking provision specified in an EHC plan is arranged from the start of a new or amended plan, and
4. review sources of SALT therapy services and develop a plan to ensure it can commission SALT therapies needed to support the EHC plans it maintains
5. explain the work completed with the Integrated Care Board and Children’s Hospital and other partners to review SALT services across the city, to ensure there is adequate high-quality support for all children who need SALT input
6. submit a report on the above to the relevant council scrutiny committee
82. The Trust will review its processes to address the faults we have identified in our investigation, namely:
1. ensuring it sends annual review reports from therapy / clinical staff to parents before the annual review meeting, in line with the Code
2. ensuring clarity of communication with parents, schools and the local authority about proposed changes to delivery of SALT therapy, and where it is not delivering provision in Section F of an EHC plan
3. ensuring capacity within the SALT service to read EHC plans before annual review meetings
4. explain the work completed with the Integrated Care Board, Council and Children’s Hospital and other partners to review SALT services across the city, to ensure there is adequate high-quality support for all children who need SALT input
5. ensuring it has arrangements to deal with complaints promptly and to keep complainants updated on progress and advised of any delays

Final decision

83. I have found fault by the Council and Trust. This fault caused Miss H and her son J an injustice and the organisations have agreed to take action to remedy that injustice. I have therefore completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman