Summary: it is too late to investigate Ms P’s complaint the Council took too long to issue her son B’s education, health and care (EHC) plan. B has not received all the speech and language therapy in section F of his plan. We have recommended a symbolic remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms P complains the Council took too long to issue her son B’s education, health and care (EHC) plan.
2. Ms P complains B has not received the speech and language therapy in section F of his plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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’. If there has been fault which has caused injustice we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
6. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I have considered information provided by Ms P and the Council. I have invited Ms P and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Ms P’s son, B, is a primary school pupil.
9. Ms P asked the Council to undertake an education, health and care needs assessment on 29 March 2022. The Council refused. Ms P appealed. The Council changed its mind. The Council issued an EHC Plan for B on 8 March 2023. Ms P disagreed with the Plan and appealed again. The Council issued an amended Plan on 8 January 2024.
10. Ms P complained to the Council on 3 July 2024. She complained the Council had taken too long to issue B’s Plan, and said he was not receiving all the speech and language provision in his Plan.
11. The Council responded on 8 August 2024. The Council upheld both Ms P’s complaints. The Council apologised for the delay issuing B’s Plan. The Council said it only became aware of problems with speech and language therapy on 7 May 2024, but acknowledged it had not resolved the problem. The Council said it would commission an independent speech and language therapist to deliver any therapy the NHS was unable to provide.
12. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Ms P asked the Council to respond at the second stage of its complaints process.
13. The Council responded on 12 September 2024. The Council explained the NHS had confirmed the provision it was unable to deliver, and the Council had begun to commission a private speech and language therapist.
14. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Ms P complained to us in September 2024.
15. I understand the Council commissioned a private speech and language therapist. However, Ms P told me in March 2025 that B was still not receiving the provision in his Plan.

Complaint 1: delay issuing B’s EHC Plan

16. Ms P complained about delay issuing B’s EHC Plan. The Council issued the Plan in March 2023. Ms P complained to the Council in July 2024 and to us in September 2024. The Council upheld Ms P’s complaint and offered its apologies. I will not investigate the matter further as more than 12 months passed between the date the Council issued the Plan and Ms P’s complaint to the Council, and 18 months before Ms P complained to us. The complaint is, therefore, too old.

Complaint 2: speech and language provision

17. Ms P complains B has not received speech and language provision in his EHC Plan.
18. Once the Council has issued a Plan, it must secure the special educational provision specified in the Plan for the child or young person. (Children and Families Act 2014, section 42)
19. The Courts have made it clear the Council’s duty to arrange provision is owed personally to the child and cannot be delegated. (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62)
20. We recommend councils check the provision is in place and record they have done so at least:
• when they issue a new or significantly amended Plan;
• at statutory reviews; and
• when concerns are raised that provision is not in place.
21. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained that it checked whether B’s school was able to deliver the proposed speech and language therapy on 18 December 2023, before it issued the final Plan. The school said it could not deliver the therapy. It appears there was an administrative error and this information was not passed on to the commissioning team. The Council said it has changed its processes to ensure this cannot happen again.
22. The Council issued B’s Plan on 8 January 2024. B received speech and language therapy from the NHS, but not the specialist provision specified in his Plan.
23. The Council said it became aware that B was not receiving the specialist provision in his Plan when Ms P emailed the Council on 7 May 2024. Following Ms P’s complaint, the Council said it would commission an independent speech and language therapist.
24. The Council made a referral to a private speech and language therapist on 16 August 2024. The Council informed Ms P it had commissioned a therapist on 21 October 2024 and said the therapist would be in touch to arrange an assessment before beginning the therapy. The therapist completed the assessment on 22 January 2025.
25. The therapist proposed:
• 12 therapy sessions;
• 3 review sessions;
• the creation of a bespoke therapy programme; and
• training sessions with B’s school.
26. Ms P disagreed with the therapist’s proposals and complained to the Council. She sent me copies of her correspondence with the therapist. She said the proposal did not deliver the provision specified in B’s EHC Plan.
27. The EHC Plan is a long and detailed document. The speech and language therapy specified in Section F includes both direct input from a speech and language therapist, and day-to-day input from school staff.
28. The direct input from a speech and language therapist includes:
• 12 weekly therapy sessions followed by a consultative model with reviews every six weeks;
• staff training; and
• a bespoke social communication programme
29. From the information I have seen, the provision proposed by the independent speech and language therapist appears to match the direct provision in B’s EHC Plan. I understand the Council was satisfied with the provision offered.
30. Taking all this information into account, my findings are:
• an administrative error by the Council meant that direct speech and language provision in B’s EHC Plan was not commissioned when the Council issued his Plan on 8 January 2024;
• the Council took appropriate action to address the problem when Ms P complained on 7 May 2024;
• however, the Council’s complaint response and the steps it took to commission the missing therapy were slower than I would have expected, especially as the therapy was already late. The Council did not commission a therapist until 21 October 2024, five months after Ms P complained and more than 10 months after it issued B’s Plan;
• the therapist completed an assessment and undertook to arrange direct therapy as specified in B’s EHC Plan.
31. When the Council responded to my enquiries in May 2025, B had still not received the specialist speech and language therapy in his Plan. Some of the delay was the result of the administrative error when the Council did not inform the commissioning team that B’s school could not arrange the therapy. The therapy should have been in place soon after the Council issued B’s Plan in January 2024. The arrangements for an independent therapist to deliver the provision were not in place until January 2025. This was a delay of 12 months. This is fault. I do not consider subsequent delay to be the result of fault by the Council. The therapy proposed by the independent therapist appears to be broadly in line with B’s EHC Plan and I can see no reason to delay provision further.

Agreed action

32. Where we find fault, we consider the impact on the complainant. We refer to this as the injustice. We may recommend a remedy for injustice that is the result of fault by the Council.
33. We have published guidance to explain how we recommend remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred. When this is not possible, as in the case of Ms P and B, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment.
34. I understand B has received some speech and language therapy input from the NHS, but not the specialist input required by his Plan. I do not underestimate the importance of the provision for B’s education. The Council said he has made some progress at school. It is likely he would have made even more progress with the specialist input.
35. I recommend the Council offers a payment of £300 to acknowledge this injustice. The Council should make the payment within six weeks of my final decision.
36. The Council should send us evidence it has complied with the above actions.
37. We can also make recommendations to ensure similar faults do not happen in the future.
38. The Council explained the changes it has made to avoid similar mistakes in the future. I welcome the Council’s actions. I will not, therefore, make further recommendations.

Back to top

Decision

39. I have completed my investigation. I find fault causing injustice. I have recommended actions to remedy the injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman