Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his child received education and Speech and Language Therapy from September 2024, did not reimburse travel expenses for Occupational Therapy appointments, and mishandled his complaints. We find the Council at fault for delays in arranging education provision and considering Occupational Therapy transport, which caused uncertainty about whether support could have been in place for the start of the academic year. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mr X, and reimburse eligible Occupational Therapy travel costs.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has failed to provide his child, Y with education and Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) since September 2024.
2. He also complained about not being reimbursed for travel expenses related to Occupational Therapy (OT) appointments.
3. Additionally, Mr X complained about how the Council handled his complaint.
4. He says these issues have negatively impacted Y’s education and caused the family distress and financial hardship.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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 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. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. 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)
8. 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

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation and guidance

EHC Plan

11. 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. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 

Education Other Than at School (EOTAS)

12. Section 61 of the Children and Families Act allows councils to arrange for special educational provision to be made otherwise than in a school. We refer to this as EOTAS in this decision statement. It is only for children who cannot receive education in any school setting. If a child has an EHC Plan and their council decides they should receive EOTAS, it amends section F of the EHC Plan to state the special educational provision will be delivered through EOTAS.

What happened

13. Y has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and receives support through an Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS) package.
14. In May 2024, Y’s education provider (provider 1) informed the Council it would stop supporting Y at the end of the academic year due to his non-engagement. This also meant Y’s Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) provision and transport to Occupational Therapy (OT) sessions would end.
15. In June, the Council considered a new provider (provider 2).
16. In July, Mr X complained to the Council, expressing concern that Y would be left without any education provision in September and said he still wanted Y to receive an education.
17. Later that month, provider 2 told the Council it could not support Y.
18. In August, the Council issued a stage 1 complaint response. It explained that provider 2 could not meet the education needs set out in Y’s EHC Plan because it is not an education provider. The Council noted that Mr X had not recently requested consultations with other providers and said a new support officer would contact him to discuss next steps.
19. Later that month, following contact from Y’s OT, Mr X informed the new support officer he was willing to drive Y to his OT sessions and asked for his travel expenses to be reimbursed. The support officer said they would seek agreement for the expenses and confirmed referrals had been made to three further education providers (providers 3, 4, and 5). They had also contacted a previous SALT provider to explore continued support.
20. In September:
• provider 3 said it had no capacity for Y;
• provider 4 held an initial assessment with the family but later said it could not meet Y’s needs;
• provider 5 offered an initial assessment, but Mr X initially declined this. He explained that he wanted assurance the provider could meet Y’s needs before proceeding, to avoid raising Y’s hopes only for the provider to later confirm it could not offer support;
• SALT funding was approved; and
• the Council approved reimbursement of Mr X’s travel expenses for OT appointments, effective from 13 September and later contacted Mr X with instructions on how to claim travel expenses.
21. Later that month, Mr X complained that providers were not being given adequate information about Y’s needs before being asked to consider support. The Council initially treated this as a request to escalate his earlier complaint to stage 2. Mr X clarified that this was a new and separate complaint.
22. Mr X later raised another complaint, criticising the Council’s complaint handling. He said the stage 1 response was now overdue, he had not been contacted by the SALT provider, and there had been delays reimbursing his travel expenses.
23. In October, the Council issued its stage 1 complaint response, confirming:
• funding for an education provider had been approved from early September, with plans to increase hours as Y settled;
• continued funding for SALT and OT had been approved until July 2025; and
• instructions for claiming expenses had been shared earlier in the month.
24. Later that month, the Council spoke to Mr X about his concerns regarding potential education providers and previous unsuccessful initial assessments. It then shared these concerns with provider 5 and asked the provider to contact him directly.
25. In November, Mr X complained that Y still had no education provider. The Council replied that provider 5 had been liaising with him to arrange an initial assessment.
26. Later that month, provider 5 completed its assessment and confirmed it could support Y.
27. In December, Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
28. In response to my enquiries, the Council confirmed Y had not received any SALT provision between September and December because it needed to be delivered in an education setting.

My findings

29. The Council was notified in May 2024 that provider 1 would stop supporting Y at the end of the academic year. This created a foreseeable gap in education, SALT, and transport to OT sessions from September 2024. Although the Council took some steps to secure continued funding and identify alternative provision, there were delays in progressing these arrangements.

Education provider

30. Y has complex needs, and finding a suitable provider was understandably challenging. However, there was a lack of timely action by the Council between May and September 2024. Providers were not approached promptly, and case progression was slow. This was fault and resulted in no education provision being in place when the new academic year began in September. While I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, that Y could have started with a new provider in September, the Council’s failure to act sooner has created uncertainty about what might have been possible had it done so.
31. From September onwards, there was a further delay when Mr X initially declined provider 5’s offer of an initial assessment, as he first sought assurance that the provider could meet Y’s needs. While Mr X’s caution is understandable given previous experiences, the purpose of an initial assessment is for a provider to determine whether it can offer suitable support. The Council responded appropriately by liaising with both parties and facilitating communication, which led to provider 5 completing an assessment in November. I therefore do not find fault in the Council’s actions between September and November 2024.

SALT

32. The Council approved SALT funding in September 2024 and arranged a new provider. However, Y did not receive SALT provision because it needed to be delivered in an education setting. This delay is linked to the wider delay in securing an education provider.

OT travel reimbursement

33. The Council did not consider Y’s transport needs for OT until Mr X raised the issue in August 2024. This was fault. Mr X advised he could transport Y himself and requested reimbursement. The Council approved this arrangement in mid-September.
34. There was some delay in providing instructions on how to claim expenses and in issuing payment, though reimbursement has now been made. Mr X transported Y for two weeks before the Council’s approval took effect. On balance, had the Council considered transport arrangements earlier, as it should have, it would have approved Mr X’s proposal before the start of the new academic year. It should therefore reimburse him for the travel expenses incurred before 13 September.

Complaint handling

35. Between July and November 2024, Mr X raised several complaints. The Council acknowledged and responded to these within its published timescales. Having reviewed the correspondence, I am satisfied the Council clearly communicated how it would handle each complaint. I therefore do not find fault in the way the Council managed the complaints process.

Back to top

Action

36. To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology;
• pay Mr X £200 to recognise the uncertainty caused by the delay finding a suitable education provider; and
• reimburse Mr X for any travel expenses incurred transporting Y to OT session between the start of the academic year and 13 September 2024.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

38. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman