Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council failed to manage her son’s Education, Health and Care Plan properly. We find that the Council delayed when dealing with Ms X’s complaints and we find that the Council did not provide the required Speech and Language Therapy and other special educational provision. Mrs X has been caused avoidable time and trouble in pursuing her complaints and her son has missed out on required provision. The Council has agreed the recommended actions to remedy the personal injustice.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complained that the Council failed to manage, and to make the provision required, set out in her son’s (Y’s) Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan or to deal with her complaints properly.
2. Specifically, Mrs X complained that:

• the Council delayed in dealing with her complaints of March 2023 and she had to chase up the Council’s response;
• the Council agreed that it would carry out a Speech and Language assessment (SALT) before the November 2022 annual review, but this did not take place. The complainant had commissioned a SALT assessment and was asking for reimbursement of £900;
• the Council failed to make the appropriate arrangements in time for Y’s June 2022 GCSEs in English and this problem continued in respect of Y’s A’ levels due to be taken in October 2025;
• the Council failed to provide an assistive ‘listening device’ since January 2023. This was agreed to be provided at the 2022 annual review and was recorded in Ys EHC Plan of January 2023;
• the Council failed to make the SALT provision between May 2022 to March 2023. The Council accepted there was a loss of SALT provision and apologised. But Mrs X wants a remedy for this loss of provision;
• the Council failed to ensure the six hours 1:1 specialist support workers were appropriately trained in autism and complex needs (November 2022 to June 2023).

3. Mrs X says that, because the Council has not made the appropriate special educational needs (SEN) provision, Y has not been able to attend a school/college setting even though he would have liked to be at school.
4. Mrs X says that Y’s mental health has seriously deteriorated, and he is frustrated and upset that he is not in an educational setting like other young people.
5. Mrs X says that she has also been caused avoidable distress, frustration and time and trouble, affecting her ability to manage her own studies. In particular, Mrs X says that she had to drive Y to lessons and therapies during November 2022 to June 2023.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

6. 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’.
7. 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).
8. 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)
9. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability-SEND) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
10. We will not normally investigate a complaint whereby the complainant had an alternative remedy by means of appeal to the SEND Tribunal unless we consider that there are reasons why the complainant could not resort to this remedy.
11. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
12. 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).
13. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

14. Mrs X complained to the Council in March 2023 and to us in April 2024. We asked the Council to investigate. Mrs X referred the complaint back to us in February 2025 having received the Council’s final complaint response.
15. I exercised discretion to investigate events from January 2022 (after the SEND Tribunal decision) because Mrs X had complained to us in April 2024 and there had been a considerable delay by the Council in investigating her concerns.
16. I originally ended my investigation to February 2025, when the Council issued an amended final EHC Plan. At this point, Mrs X had a right of appeal to SEND Tribunal if she was dissatisfied with the content or provision of the EHC Plan. However, Mrs X asked to amend the end date of our investigation to earlier. Normally, we would not do this once our enquiries had started. But I decided that the end date of our investigation will be the end of 2024 (a couple of months before the original date of February 2025) because it makes no material difference to the matters which I have considered.
17. I decided not to continue my investigation into the complaint about the listening device because, during the investigation, I learned that this was considered as part of recent Tribunal hearings.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

18. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and by the Council, as well as the relevant law, policy and guidance. I spoke to Mrs X on the telephone and made enquiries of the Council. I have spoken to an officer from the Council.
19. I issued four draft decision statements to the Council and to Mrs X and requested further information to help determine the fault and injustice. I have taken into account their further comments before reaching a final decision.

Back to top

What I found-Legal background

20. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
21. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
• Section J: Details of any personal budget made. 

22. The council has a duty to make sure the child, or young person, receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). A council can provide an Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) package for pupils unable to attend an educational placement. Such a package can be supported financially by direct payments where the parent or young person is involved in securing their provision.

Background facts

23. Y has had an EHC Plan since 2017 and, before then, a statement of special educational needs.
24. From December 2021, Y had an Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) package. When initial discussions took place about EOTAS, Mrs X explained that she did not want to manage the budget. Therefore, it was envisaged that the budget would be managed solely by the Council.
25. The EOTAS package broadly included fourteen hours tuition per week, along with dyslexia, emotional and social support (five hours per week dyslexia tuition, six hours of 1:1 support and two weekly thirty minutes of SALT).
26. Mrs X commissioned her own private SALT assessment for the 2021 SEND Tribunal. Y’s January 2022 EHC Plan (issued after the SEND Tribunal) stated that there should be an updated SALT assessment before each annual review.

Facts of this complaint-2022

27. During 2022, Y continued to receive education under his EOTAS package. The budget was managed by the Council. The therapist providing the SALT left in May 2022, stating that there would be a smooth transition to another therapist. When responding to Mrs X’s complaint at stage one, the Council confirmed that there was a gap before another therapist was commissioned.
28. In September 2022, the Council told Mrs X that it had approached a SALT provider (Provider C) to arrange the required therapy. Provider C is based at a location quite a distance from Mrs X’s home. The Council covers a wide geographically area and that can make it difficult to find therapists close to a resident’s home.
29. Mrs X has provided evidence, by way of copy emails from the Council, that it was the Council who approached Provider C in September 2022 to provide the SALT. She did not request any particular provider.
30. In October 2022, a SALT therapist acknowledged that Y was not receiving SALT and she did an assessment for the forthcoming annual review at the request of the Council. Mrs X says that this was not a legitimate assessment because the therapist did not meet Y and simply wrote up the May 2022 notes of the previous SALT therapist. Therefore, the assessment was inadequate.
31. In November 2022, Mrs X chased up the missing SALT. The Council told her it had contacted Provider C who should be able to arrange the necessary SALT and that Provider C would cover all assessments and therapeutic input that remained outstanding
32. The Council issued a final amended EHC Plan in November 2022 after the annual review of November 2022. Section F stated, among other things, that Y should receive tuition from a qualified tutor with experience, or suitably trained in autism and social communication difficulties. In addition, there should be an annual SALT assessment, five hours of dyslexia tuition per week, a social, emotional independence package of six hours per week supported by a 1:1 consistent adult, suitably trained, along with support to access information technology and a practitioner to help with Y’s autism.
33. In addition, Y was to receive two weekly sessions of thirty minutes direct SALT, and the SALT therapist was to work closely with the other packages to support Y’s communication skills.
34. Mrs X had a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal if she was dissatisfied with the EHC Plan’s content and provision. Therefore, I have not investigated any complaint about the details of the November 2022 EHC Plan, only about whether the Council made the required provision in Section F.

Events of 2023

35. In January 2023, Mrs X again asked about the missing SALT. The Council told her that Provider C would be in touch to arrange the necessary SALT sessions.
36. The Council approached Mrs X asking her to sign a direct payment form. Mrs X said that she did not want to take on the extra burden of managing Y’s budget in addition to the time in taking Y to his various lessons and therapies. Mrs X refused to sign the form.
37. Plans were made for Y to take his English GCSE. However, the examination centre subsequently stated it could no longer accommodate external candidates.
38. The direct SALT provision resumed in early March 2023. According to the Council, not all the therapy after March 2023 was taken up because Y did not want direct SALT therapy. So, the Council considers that Y may not have taken this up even if provided earlier.
39. Mrs X says this was not the case. Y received the SALT provision from the same therapist between March 2023 to November 2024, when available. At one point, the Council was seeking to find a therapist closer to Mrs X’s home. But, at Mrs X’s request, it was agreed that the same therapist should continue to work with Y.
40. In March 2023, Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council, marking the matter as urgent as there was no confirmed arrangement for Y to sit his English GCSE in June 2023. She also complained that Y had not had a SALT assessment, before his annual review in 2022, he had not received a daily communication programme, there had been no support to access information technology or a practitioner for his autism.
41. In June 2023, a direct payment scheme was set up for Y’s independence package of six hours per week with 1:1 support from a known adult support worker. A fuel allowance was also agreed.
42. In July 2023, Mrs X had further discussions with the Council about the budget for 2023/2024, making it clear that she did not want to manage this. There is referenced in the emails between Mrs X and the Council about the need for Mrs X to be reimbursed the costs she had incurred for arranging provision. The Council says that Mrs X purchased her own support workers and this was not an issue at the time.
43. Mrs X says that, between November 2022 and June 2023 she provided a lot of support to Y which was not appropriate because Y required adult support outside the family. Mrs X explained that she sought to find providers when the Council had delayed in doing so because otherwise Y would have missed out on the required provision. However, Mrs X confirmed that she did not find providers for the period of her complaint, November 2022 to June 2023, and she supported Y during this period.
44. The Council commissioned a SALT assessment from the therapist in September 2023 prior to the annual review of November 2023.
45. In October 2023 Mrs X agreed to use provider Z’s payroll system to reimburse Y’s support assistants and other additional expenses. However, Mrs X remained of the view that the Council retained the responsibility to source provision.
46. Mrs X did not receive a response to her complaint, so she referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. We asked the Council to deal with the complaint.

2024-the Council’s stage one complaint response

47. The Council replied to Mrs X’s March 2023 complaints in June 2024. The Council upheld or partially upheld the following complaints:

• that SALT had not been provided between January 2022 to February 2023, as it should have, and the Council apologised;
• it partly upheld the complaint that Y did not have access to information technology; and
• it made no finding on the complaint about the daily communication programme and 1:1 support because Mrs X had not provided the dates this period covered (but Ms X had provided the dates this period covered: November 2022 to June 2023).

48. The Council did not uphold the other complaints. It said:

• that arrangements were subsequently made for Y to take his English GCSE at a different centre, and he did so successfully.

49. Mrs X asked for her complaints to be considered at stage two of the Council’s complaints process. She highlighted that her complaints were as follows:

• there had been no SALT assessment before an annual review in 2022; no SALT provision between May 2022 to March 2023; no access to information technology; no daily communication programme incorporated into Y’s academic work to include training from a SALT therapist and an Occupational Therapist (OT) for the 1:1 support workers.

50. In December 2024, the Council sent its final response. It accepted the findings at stage one and said that it would need proof that provision had not been made, as claimed. Mrs X considered she had provided the evidence.
51. Mrs X referred her complaints to us.

The Council’s response to my enquiries

52. Mrs X is not asking the Council to reimburse the £900 she paid for the SALT assessment for the 2021 SEND Tribunal. Her concern has been that there was no SALT assessment in 2022 before the 2022 annual review, as required.
53. The Council accepted that there was no SALT provision between May 2022 to March 2023. But it considers that this was because Mrs X had a preferred therapist who lived some distance from her home, and this caused the delay. Mrs X disputed this.
54. The Council says that Y managed to take his GCSEs successfully. Mrs X says that not knowing where one would sit their GCSEs would not happen to the same age peers without a disability.
55. The Council wrongly closed Mrs X’s complaints of 2023 without dealing with them. It apologised for the delay in responding.
56. The Council says that the communication planning specific to needs have been embedded with tutors with relevant training. And the support workers are trained by the SALT therapist, as required. The Council maintains that Mrs X always provided her own support workers and there is no evidence that this was an issue at the time. The Council says that this provision was included in its 2022/2023 budget for the purpose of meeting the requirements in the EOTAS package. But the Council does not have evidence of how this budget was spent.
57. The Council’s view is that Y made progress and his needs were met in tuition without an additional 1:1, alongside the tutor. In its view, there is no evidence of any detrimental effect on Y.
58. The Council considers that it could have met Y’s needs in that it was willing to look at a college placement for Y which it thought might better meet his needs for socialisation. But Mrs X disagreed with its plans. The Council is now looking at alternative options to meet Y’s educational and socialisation needs.
59. Mrs X did not disagree with the plans but was asking for the provision to be made as set out in Y’s EHC Plan.

Back to top

Findings: Delay in dealing with Ms X’s complaints

60. The Council delayed in dealing with Mrs X’s concerns. She had to refer her complaints to the Ombudsman, and we then had to refer them back to the Council to respond. I consider that the Council has been at fault, and this has caused Mrs X avoidable time and trouble. The Council has apologised for this fault.

The Council has not carried out an annual SALT assessment and is unwilling to reimburse Mrs X for the assessment she commissioned

61. The Council should not reimburse the cost of the SALT assessment because Mrs X commissioned this for the Tribunal. And the Council has not relied on this. Therefore, I find no fault in the Council’s decision here. In any event, Mrs X is not now asking to be reimbursed.
62. Y’s EHC Plan stated that there should be an annual SALT assessment. There was an assessment in October 2022, which Mrs X says was inadequate. I accept that this was not a comprehensive assessment and, therefore, I find some fault.

Failure to make appropriate arrangements for Y’s English GCSE

63. This complaint is about the 2023 arrangement for Y to take his English GCSE and the poor communication from the Council. Mrs X says the delay in confirming arrangements (caused by the original examination centre saying it could not accommodate Y) resulted in stress and anxiety. I recognise this and it was not ideal and it is very unlikely Y’s peers based in a school setting would have had this additional anxiety. But Y was in receipt of an EOTAS package and finding suitable examination centres for pupils out of school brings an additional complexity.
64. While there was some fault by the Council in rearranging and communication, Y was able to take his English GCSE and therefore I am not seeking a specific remedy for this.

Failure to provide SALT between May 2022 to March 2023

65. The Council accepts SALT was not provided between May 2022 to March 2023, but there were legitimate reasons for this. It did try to find a suitable provider and has already said Mrs X had a preferred therapist.
66. The Council’s previous argument that Mrs X insisted on a particular therapist/provider does not hold water because it was the Council who appointed Provider C, knowing it was some distance from Mrs X’s home. In mid-2023, the Council had wanted to find a therapist closer to Mrs X’s home and it is at this point that Mrs X expressed a preference for the current therapist to remain.
67. Mrs X’s complaint is about the delay between May 2022 and March 2023 in providing the required SALT which meant Y missed out on proximately eight school months of SALT. My view is that this failure amounts to fault and it is more likely than not that this would have caused a detriment to Y’s education.

Failure to make other provision in Section F of Y’s EHC Plan; the daily communication programme incorporated into Y’s academic work had not been provided between December 2021 to March 2023; no 1:1 support from a suitably trained and consistent adult and a failure to provide the six hours per week of support.

68. The only provision, which the Council acknowledged at stage one of its complaint response had not been provided, was the lack of access to information technology. My view is that this failure amounts to fault.
69. In respect of the other provision, the Council says that Mrs X found her own assistants and, in addition, the 1:1 support was embedded in the tuition provided.
70. Mrs X says that the 1:1 support was missing between November 2022 to June 2023, a total of 32 school weeks. Mrs X says that she did not find support workers during this period but provided the support directly herself, causing a detriment to both herself, and Y, as he required support outside the family. Moreover, the Council has not provided evidence that such support was provided.
71. Therefore, the Council has been at fault in that it failed to arrange the required 1:1 support for the period of November 2022 to June 2023, and this would have caused an injustice to Y and to Mrs X.
72. The Council has said that the communication programme was embedded in the tuition provided and was catered for in the EOTAS budget of 2022/2023. I am satisfied that Y has received the educational part of his EOTAS package, namely the tuition and Y did well in his GCSEs. However, I cannot determine whether the communication programme was embedded in the tuition provided.

Back to top

Action

73. We do not normally recommend a time and trouble payment just for having to complain to a council or to us. But we recognise that mistakes in a council’s complaints process can cause avoidable time and trouble and we may recommend a small symbolic payment for this.
74. Within one month of the final statement, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mrs X for the delay in dealing with her complaints and make a symbolic payment of £250. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
2. make a symbolic payment of £750 for the missed SALT, payable to Mrs X and to be used for the benefit of Y; and
3. make a symbolic payment of £500 for the other lost SEN provision for Y, which I have identified, payable to Mrs X.
75. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

76. I find some fault causing an injustice. I have recommended ways to remedy the injustice caused which the Council has accepted. I have therefore completed my investigation and am closing the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman