Summary: We upheld a complaint made by Ms J, about the education provision made for her son, Mr K, who had an Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council failed to respond to her concerns over several months including after she complained. We found this caused injustice to both Ms J and Mr K as distress. We also found Mr K lost some education provision. The Council accepted our findings. At the end of this statement, we set out what action it agreed to take to remedy Mr K’s and Ms J’s injustice and improve its service to prevent a repeat of the fault.

The complaint

1. Ms J complained about the Council’s special educational needs service. She said the Council failed to:

• ensure her son ‘Mr K’, received speech and language therapy (SALT) in line with his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan which it maintained until July 2025;
• arrange for Mr K to receive tuition and therapeutic services over the summer period in 2024. This was despite it having provided tuition over the previous two summers. It also failed to ensure Mr K received tuition on days his tutor could not work with him;
• reply to a complaint made about its service in June 2024, until April 2025.

2. Ms J said because of the above Mr K missed SALT and education provision he needed to help meet his special educational needs. She also experienced frustration when raising these concerns and making her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
4. We consider ‘service failure’ an objective, factual test about what happened. A finding of service failure does not imply blame, intent or bad faith by the council involved. There may be circumstances where we decide service failure has occurred and caused an injustice to the complainant despite the best efforts of the council. This still amounts to fault. (R (on the application of ER) v CLA (LGO) [2014] EWCA civ 1407) 
5. 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 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)
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 Tribunal in this decision statement.
8. 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)
9. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Ms J and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. I gave Ms J and the Council opportunity to comment on a draft version of this decision statement and provide any further evidence they considered relevant to its content. I produced this final statement after taking account of their responses to the draft.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legal and administrative considerations

12. A young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out their needs and arrangements to meet them.
13. 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).
14. The council must arrange a review of an EHC Plan at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The annual review begins with consulting the young person and / or their parents and the education provider. A review meeting must then take place. The process completes when the council decides whether to amend, maintain or discontinue the EHC Plan and sends notice of its decision. That must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
15. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the young person or their parent a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan. It must enclose an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). This too must happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Councils must then issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.
16. A parent or young person can appeal to the Tribunal if they disagree with the content of Section F of the final amended Plan. This section may include details of any SALT the Council considers necessary to meet the young person’s education needs.
17. A council can maintain an EHC Plan until the end of the academic year when the young person turns 25. Government guidance says: “it is important that a young person’s exit from an EHC Plan is planned carefully, to support smooth transitions and effective preparation for adulthood” (see SEN Code paragraph 9.207)

The key facts

18. Mr K is an adult with disabilities. Throughout the events covered by this complaint he lived in a supported living placement and he had an EHC Plan until July 2025, which ended because he had turned 25. The Plan said he would receive education from a tutor who would visit his home for three hours each weekday during term time. Ms J told us Mr K also received some tutoring over the summer holiday periods in 2022 and 2023 following agreement by the Council. However, Mr K’s Plan did not say he would receive summer tuition.
19. Because of his disabilities, Mr K has communication needs. After December 2021, section F of Mr K’s EHC Plan said he would receive SALT. His Plan said:

• a speech and language therapist would devise interventions aimed at supporting Mr K’s specific needs. They would work with his tutor who would deliver daily activities based on those interventions. They would provide training to the tutor once every six weeks;
• the SALT service would review Mr K’s interventions and therapy each term to ensure they remained appropriate;
• the therapist would write a report for each annual review of Mr K’s EHC Plan; they would also attend the annual review meeting;
• the therapist would provide an “initial block” of six weekly SALT sessions with Mr K. The “level of direct therapy” would be reviewed after this time.

20. The Council reviewed Mr K’s EHC Plan in December 2023. A review meeting took place, but the Council kept no notes of this. There are no records the SALT provider produced a report as part of the review.
21. Following the review meeting, at the end of December 2023 the Council wrote to Ms J saying it intended to amend Mr K’s EHC Plan. It sent her a copy of the proposed amendments. These were minimal but included comment that Ms J and professionals saw a decline in self-harming behaviours by Mr K, which they credited to the SALT intervention. There were no changes proposed to that part of Section F which explained what SALT Mr K would receive. So, it contained the same wording as the December 2021 Plan.
22. Ms J commented on the draft EHC Plan, saying she understood the Council would update the passage referring to Mr K’s SALT needs. But in January 2024 the Council sent Ms J a copy of the final Plan which contained only those amendments proposed in December 2023. So, that part of Section F referring to Mr K’s SALT needs remained as written in December 2021.
23. In early May 2024 Ms J sent an email to the Case Officer responsible for overseeing Mr K’s EHC Plan. She referred to a telephone call the previous day, of which the Council has no record. In her email, Ms J said she:

• wanted clarity about what SALT the Council had approved Mr K should receive;
• was unhappy the Council had not updated Mr K’s SALT provision following the December 2023 review, nor quantified what he should receive;
• was also unhappy the SALT provider had not provided a report for the December 2023 review.

24. Ms J said a meeting followed, but the Council provided no note of this to us. It did send us a copy of an email showing its Case Officer contacted the SALT provider around this time. The email was brief, asking only if the SALT provider could “advise about [Mr K’s] ongoing SALT provision”. The provider replied the same day saying she visited Mr K every fortnight. The provider gave no detail of the work undertaken with Mr K or his tutor, nor his progress.
25. In June 2024 Ms J made a complaint, set out in the terms summarised in paragraph 1. She also sent a separate email to the SEN service asking if it could provide summer tuition for Mr K.
26. In July 2024, having received no answer to her complaint Ms J asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two of its corporate complaint procedure. She also sent separate emails to the SEN service chasing her request it provide summer tuition for Mr K, to which she received no reply.
27. Also in July 2024, the Council sent an email to a different SALT provider asking if it could meet Mr K’s need for therapy.
28. Also in July 2024, a new Case Officer who took over management of Mr K’s case referred it to a “Preparing for Adulthood” (PFA) Panel. The document summarised the therapeutic provision set out in Mr K’s Plan (which included occupational therapy as well as SALT). The summary used a form of wording identical with that contained in another referral to the Panel which approved funding for Mr K’s provision in July 2022. The Officer sought approval for continued funding of Mr K’s education provision, including the therapeutic provision.
29. The Panel rejected the request. It said this was because it had not received enough information. It asked its Case Officer to work with colleagues in social care and bring the case back to the panel.
30. In August 2024 the Council sent an acknowledgement to Ms J, that it had received her complaint. It explained that Mr K’s Case Officer had referred his case to its PFA Panel which had rejected a request for further funding for occupational therapy. But the Panel would reconsider the case once its Case Officer had worked with “you, social care and SEN” to provide further information.
31. Later that month the PFA Panel considered Mr K’s case again. The Case Officer again requested approval for Mr K’s package of tuition and therapy. It contained notes of a conversation with his social worker. There is no indication that conversation included discussion of Mr K’s need for SALT or its provision.
32. The document records the Panel agreed ongoing funding. It said the Council must “look into care package for appropriate transition” and ensure it reviewed Mr K’s EHC Plan the following term.
33. In January 2025 Ms J contacted this office as she had still not received a reply to her complaint. We asked the Council five times over the next two months to send its reply to Ms J. Twice it sent her emails apologising for the delay, but it did not send its response until March 2025. When it did reply, it said:

• that it understood a speech and language therapist had begun working with Mr K from May 2024 following a six month break in the service. It said the gap in provision followed the SALT service completing its “direct hours” agreed for the academic year. It said the therapist had advised Mr K’s tutor on how to include SALT in their work with him;
• Mr K’s Plan was “due for an update” in January 2025; it had now allocated his case to another Case Officer to “begin the ceasing process”. That officer would also undertake a “thorough review” to ensure all “provisions are updated and quantified”;
• it regretted that Mr K’s Case Officer had not kept in better contact with her;
• that in July 2022 it had only agreed funding for Mr K’s tuition for six months (at the PFA panel). It would review its process for considering summer tuition requests in the future;
• that it was the responsibility of the tutor’s employer to ensure cover was in place if the tutor could not teach Mr K on any given day. But that it would look to prevent disruption to Mr K if there were further absences.

34. In comments to this office made in April 2025 Ms J said the SALT service only resumed in January 2025. She also said Mr K’s tutor had told her it was for the Council to provide cover, if they could not teach him on any given day. In response to the draft version of this decision statement, Ms J said Mr K’s SALT service only resumed in July 2025 and was sporadic after that.
35. In August 2025 the Council completed a document headed “transfer / discharge / closure summary”. This provided a brief summary of the Council’s decision to provide Mr K with supported living accommodation. It noted his EHC Plan had stopped following his 25th birthday. It provided no comment on what the Plan contained nor any consideration of the tutoring or therapeutic services it provided.
36. During this investigation the Council also provided records showing that during the combined 2023-24 and 2024-25 academic years Mr K’s tutor could not provide a service on 23 days. It had no record of any discussion about the tutor’s absences either with Ms J or the tutor’s employer.
37. During this investigation the Council also said that during 2024 it had experienced significant backlogs in replying to complaints. It said that it had subsequently introduced new information technology for monitoring complaints. It had since improved performance, including by appointing a dedicated officer to answer ‘stage one’ complaints about its SEN service. It provided statistics showing it was answering 90% of complaints within its published timescales (10 working days for stage one replies and 20 working days for stage two complaints).
38. The Council also said that it now kept better records linked to the cases of those children and young people with SEN. It wanted to “maintain a clear audit trail” moving forward.

My findings

My approach to investigation

39. As I explained above, we cannot usually investigate a complaint where the person complaining has had the alternative remedy of appeal to a tribunal. We can only do so when we consider there are good reasons that mean it was not reasonable to expect the complainant to have used this route to resolve their complaint.
40. I considered this relevant to Ms J’s complaint about Mr K’s SALT provision. It was clear that in January 2024 Ms J had a concern that Mr K’s EHC Plan did not accurately reflect his need for this therapy. She wanted his Plan to quantify what SALT he should receive. She contacted Mr K’s Case Officer accordingly after receiving a draft EHC Plan which did not make changes to this provision. But the Council failed to act on those comments. It issued a final EHC Plan that month, without changes to Section F covering Mr K’s SALT provision.
41. At that point, Ms J had the right of appeal to the Tribunal. She could have appealed the content of Section F of Mr K’s Plan because she did not consider it accurately quantified his need for SALT. I found the Council did tell Ms J of her right to appeal when it sent the final amended Plan to her.
42. I could find no good reasons to investigate Ms J’s complaint that it failed to amend Mr K’s Plan to update his SALT provision in January 2024.
43. I therefore decided I could not investigate the Council’s response to Ms J’s concerns about Mr K’s SALT provision before May 2024, when she contacted the Case Officer again about this matter. By this time Ms J’s right to appeal had lapsed, but that did not prevent her contacting the Council to raise any concern about Mr K’s provision. I noted the right to appeal never arose again because of the Council’s handling of Mr K’s case after this time, which I discuss below.

The complaint about SALT provision

44. I considered Ms J’s contact with the Council in May 2024 should have alerted it to deficiencies in its monitoring of Mr K’s SALT provision. At that point in time:

• it had left unchanged the description of Mr K’s SALT provision in his Plan, since December 2021;
• consequently, it had not specified what the SALT service would provide beyond an “initial block” of provision, due to expire in early 2022;
• it had no evidence of the termly reviews the Plan said the SALT service would undertake;
• it had no evidence of the SALT service compiling annual reports;
• it had no evidence of the extent to which the SALT service liaised with Mr K’s tutor. So, it also had no evidence showing to what extent the tutor embedded the SALT service recommendations in their work.

45. The Council should therefore have used the opportunity afforded by Ms J’s contact, and her complaint which followed a month later, to assess whether it was fulfilling the duty it owed to Mr K that he receive SALT in line with his Plan. Its failure to update the relevant part of Mr K’s Plan since December 2021 would have complicated that assessment. But it did not prevent it asking for meaningful up-to-date information from the SALT provider to clarify what provision Mr K had received and what he needed moving forward.
46. But the Council failed to take that opportunity. While it sent an email to the SALT provider in May 2024, this was inadequate in response to the matters listed in paragraph 44. So, it received an inadequate reply in response.
47. It was not clear to me why K’s case returned to the PFA Panel in July 2024, after an apparent absence of two years. But I noted that referral contained out-of-date information about Mr K’s need for SALT. So, the Council missed another opportunity to find out what SALT Mr K had received and needed going forward. There was no record the senior officers who sat on that Panel raised any concerns about this. So, they too were culpable for not noticing, or addressing, the omissions listed in paragraph 44.
48. When the case returned to the Panel a month later, this pattern of not considering Ms J’s legitimate concerns continued. The Panel neither asked for, nor received, any information about Mr K’s SALT needs and provision.
49. That said, I recognise the Panel at least identified a need to review Mr K’s SALT as part of an annual review. It asked its Case Officer to arrange it for early in the 2024 Autumn term. But the Council did not follow up its action. Something that shows there was a wider failing by the Council to monitor the services it provided to Mr K.
50. Because even if Ms J had not raised concerns about Mr K’s SALT provision, the Council had a duty to review his Plan by December 2024. This was a particularly important review, as it would be the last scheduled review before Mr K turned 25. This meant the Council not only had to ensure it reviewed its education provision to Mr K (including his SALT provision) but also engaged in transition planning. Its SEN service had to work with adult social care colleagues taking over sole funding of Mr K’s needs. The services needed to consider if any of the support provided by the education service should continue in order to meet Mr K’s social care needs.
51. In summary therefore, the Council was at fault for failing to review Mr K’s SALT provision after May 2024. This was either in response to Ms J’s contacts with its SEN service, in response to her complaint or as part of a review of Mr K’s EHC Plan due in Autumn 2024. The Council’s failure to carry out any review of Mr K’s EHC Plan after December 2023 was also on its own, a further fault
52. In considering the impact of these faults, Ms J suggested Mr K went without any SALT provision for several months, before it re-started either in January or July 2025 (she has offered both dates). The Council provided a different account. It said it resumed providing the service in May 2024 although it said Mr K had not received the service for ‘several months’ before then. I could not say from the contemporaneous records what SALT service Mr K received, nor when. Nor could I say to what extent any SALT service included giving support to Mr K’s tutor, something written into his EHC Plan. However, I noted the Council approached an alternative SALT provider in July 2024, which suggested the previous provider could no longer meet Mr K’s needs.
53. I considered making further enquiries to resolve these discrepancies in the evidence. However, I decided not to do this because whatever SALT provision Mr K received after May 2024, I could come to no view about its suitability. This was because the Council had failed to keep his provision under review. So, even if I could get certainty about what service Mr K received, I could not say to what extent that met his need. Mr K’s need for SALT provision could have been greater or less than whatever he received after May 2024.
54. Therefore, I found the injustice caused to Mr K was that of uncertainty about whether he received adequate or suitable SALT provision after May 2024. We consider uncertainty a form of distress. I set out below the action the Council has agreed to take to remedy that.
55. I considered that uncertainty extended beyond the lifespan of Mr K’s EHC Plan. Because of the inadequate transition planning for Mr K, I found no evidence the Council considered what SALT service Mr K might benefit from following the end of his EHC Plan. While Ms J’s comments suggested a service remained in place, there was no evidence for what service the Council had continued to provide, nor its basis for doing so. I took account of this in recommending action I wanted the Council to take to remedy Mr J’s injustice, and I am pleased it agreed that action also, set out below.
56. I next considered the communications the SEN service had with Ms J. The Council provided no evidence it answered her email sent in May 2024. And it did not accurately tell her about the referrals to its PFA Panel. While in August 2024 it told her about the Panel referral the previous month, it provided only limited explanation for this. It suggested the Panel only considered Mr K’s need for occupational therapy, which was not the case. The Council also said it would discuss Mr K’s case with her before it returned to Panel. But there was no evidence this happened. This poor customer service by the Council was also a fault.
57. This poor service caused Ms J a separable distress, through avoidable worry and frustration. Set out below is the action agreed by the Council to remedy that distress.

Complaints about tuition

58. The lack of Council records meant that it was not possible for me to say why it agreed to provide summer tuition for Mr K in summer 2022 and 2023. Nor why it did not provide such tuition in summer 2024. The complaint response appeared to link the non-provision of this service with the referrals to the PFA Panel. But the referrals to the Panel contained no mention of this request. So, there was no record the Panel ever considered Ms J’s request for summer tuition.
59. Ms J raised her wish for Mr K to receive summer tuition in June 2024, having also raised it directly with the SEN service. This provided the Council with another opportunity therefore to respond to her request. But its failure to keep to its published timescales for answering complaints, meant the summer passed without it considering this matter. I therefore found the Council at fault for not responding to Ms J’s request before it was too late.
60. The injustice this caused was that of further uncertainty to Mr K. Because Mr K’s EHC Plan did not include summer provision, I could not say the Council had any duty to provide it. But the Council did have an onus to reply to Ms J’s request. Given that it had agreed such provision during the previous two summers, I had no more reason to say it would have declined that request than it would have agreed it.
61. Next, I considered the complaint about the tutor’s absences. The Council failed to clarify with me the contract arrangements it had with the tutor’s employer. So, I could not say which had responsibility to arrange cover during the tutor’s absences. But I considered it unnecessary to make more enquiries to resolve this matter because the Council’s duty was to ensure Mr K received the education provision set out in his EHC Plan. So, when Mr K did not receive provision because nobody could tutor him on a given day, that was a service failure and therefore a fault.
62. The facts showed Mr K did miss some tuition because of the absence of his tutor. This equated to somewhere between four and five weeks provision over the course of two academic years. That loss of provision was a further injustice to Mr K for which I recommended the Council provide a remedy. It agreed this and I set out the details below.

The Council’s complaint handling

63. The Council was further at fault for the delay in answering Ms J’s complaint made in June 2024. She should have received a stage one reply to her complaint before the end of the month. Having escalated her complaint the following month because the Council had not replied to it, Ms J should have received a reply at stage two of its procedure by the beginning of August. But Ms J had to wait a further seven months to receive a reply. In between, the Council’s efforts to keep in touch were inadequate. It took several interventions from this office for Ms J to receive any update after August 2024.
64. And when the Council finally replied, its response was poor. Its letter gave the impression the Council had drafted it some months before. It said a review of Mr K’s Plan would take place in January 2025. But that date had passed when the Council sent the letter.
65. I noted also that while the letter promised certain actions by the Council, there was no evidence it followed up to ensure it took such action.
66. This poor complaint handling caused further injustice to Ms J. It added unnecessary time, trouble and frustration to her attempts to address deficiencies in Mr K’s education provision. The Council agreed to take action to remedy this injustice also, as set out below.

Back to top

Agreed Action

67. In paragraphs 54, 55, 57, 60, 62 and 66 I have set out where I found fault by the Council caused Mr K or Ms J an injustice. The Council accepted these findings and to remedy their injustice it agreed that within 20 working days of a decision on this complaint, it would:
1. provide Ms J with an apology, accepting the findings of this investigation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council agreed to consider this guidance when making its apology;
2. make a symbolic payment to Mr K of £1250. This comprised £500 for the uncertainty caused to Mr K set out in paragraph 54; for that set out in paragraph 60 another £250 and for the loss of service identified in paragraph 62 a further £500;
3. make a symbolic payment to Ms J of £600. This comprised £300 for the distress identified in paragraph 57 and a further £300 for the injustice explained in paragraph 66;
4. commission an up to date assessment to consider if Mr K had an ongoing need for SALT, to remedy the injustice identified in paragraph 55. The Council’s adult care service agreed to consider the content of the SALT report within 20 working days of receipt. It agreed it would then tell Ms J if it intended to commission a SALT service for Mr K moving forward (or offer her a direct payment to commission the same).
68. If Ms J is unhappy with the outcome of the Council’s consideration at point 67d) above, she will be able to make a further complaint. She can make this direct to this office, with no expectation the Council consider it via its complaint procedure first.
69. I also considered whether the Council should make service improvements following this complaint. I found it could have prevented some of the fault in this case had its complaint procedure functioned effectively. I welcomed the Council had improved the timeliness of its replies to complaints about its SEN service significantly since the events covered by the complaint. So, I saw no need to recommend anything further in respect of its complaint handling.
70. I also noted the Council accepted the need to have better record keeping, so it kept a clear audit of its case management decisions, for children or young people with EHC Plans. This case clearly demonstrated such a need. The Council indicated it now has a casework management recording system to enable this. I accepted that if it used this properly, it would help make a repeat of the events covered by this complaint less likely.
71. However, I considered there was more the Council could do here. One of the fundamental failings in this case was that it failed to review Mr K’s EHC Plan over the final 18 months when it maintained that. That led me to question how it identified cases overdue for review, and how it ensured such reviews happened. For example, was there a procedure to flag such cases to the attention of managers, who could then raise such cases with Case Officers. I took account that often the responsibility to arrange reviews will fall on schools and other education institutions. There will be fewer cases such as Mr K’s where all the responsibility to administer a review falls on the Council directly. But this made having such a procedure for those cases essential.
72. So, within three months of a decision on this complaint, the Council agreed that it would:

• ensure it had a case management system in place to specifically identify those children and young people with EHC Plans, not in school or other education institution, where the annual review of their Plan had become overdue. The procedure would make clear in those cases who had the responsibility within the Council to arrange the review and what management oversight it would exercise over this. Which in turn would include details of how the Council would escalate cases for review dependent on the length of the delay in arranging one.

73. The Council agreed that it would provide us with evidence when it had complied with the recommended actions in paragraphs 67 and 72.

Back to top

Final Decision

74. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Ms J and Mr K. The Council accepted these findings and agreed actions that I considered would remedy that injustice and help prevent a repeat of the fault. So, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman