Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to review her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan within the legal timeframe. Any fault has not caused a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
• failed to review her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in the legal time frame;
• did not provide the required support, including one-to-one Occupational Therapy (OT) and Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT); and
• initially failed to invite the correct speech and language therapist to Y’s Annual Review (AR).
2. Ms X said repeatedly following up with the Council trying to ensure Y’s provisions were met, caused avoidable distress, and Y’s mental health suffered from the lack of support.
3. Ms X seeks acknowledgment of these failings, reinstatement of SaLT with Y’s previous therapist, and additional support to compensate for the missed SaLT sessions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference, or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
9. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

Delay in EHC Plan process

10. Ms X complained the Council failed to review Y’s EHC Plan within the statutory timeframe. The Council completed the review eight weeks late.
11. In its complaint response, the Council said the delay resulted from rescheduling and communication issues among participants, including Ms X. It apologised for this oversight. Following review, the Council decided to cease Y’s EHC Plan. This means any delay did not cause Y to miss out on provision. Therefore, any injustice from the delay is not significant enough to justify our involvement and we will not investigate this part of the complaint. If Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decision to cease Y’s EHC Plan, she can appeal to the SEND Tribunal.

Failed to provide one-to-one Occupational Therapy support

12. Ms X said the Council failed to provide six sessions of one-to-one OT support specified in Y’s EHC Plan.
13. In its complaint response, the Council confirmed the Occupational Therapist had arranged the sessions as specified in Y’s EHC Plan. However, Y was not always in college to attend these. Additionally, the OT provided training and support to college staff, which the Council said would have indirectly benefited Y. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of the complaint as there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

Speech and Language Therapy

14. Ms X said Y missed out on SaLT between 2014 and October 2023, as this was not included in Y’s EHC Plan. We have previously considered Ms X’s complaint about the missed SaLT and will not revisit these issues as part of this complaint. However, we can look at the SaLT provision from Y’s last EHC Plan issued in October 2023.
15. In its complaint response, the Council said it funded speech and language support throughout 2023 and 2024. It referred to a report compiled by Y’s speech and language therapist from March 2024. Y’s therapist scheduled weekly sessions which were reduced to fortnightly at Y’s request. Therefore, we will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about missed SaLT provisions as there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.
16. Ms X also complained the Council failed to invite the correct speech and language therapist to Y’s Annual Review.
17. The Council acknowledged it invited the incorrect speech therapist to a scheduled meeting and apologised to Ms X. The meeting was postponed, and the correct speech therapist was invited to the next meeting. Therefore, we will not investigate this part of the complaint, as any resulting injustice is not significant enough to justify investigating.

Back to top

Final decision

18. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because any fault has not caused a significant enough injustice to justify our involvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman