Summary: Mrs X complained her child had not received the speech and language therapy (SALT) provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan. We have ended the investigation as there is insufficient evidence of fault. The Council has agreed to arrange a private SALT assessment and further investigation is unlikely to achieve more. Mrs X also complained about the actions of the School which we cannot investigate and the Council’s efforts to arrange mediation, which we will not investigate further as it is unlikely we would find the Council at fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained:
1. her child Y has not received speech and language therapy in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and so has missed out on provision to meet their needs. In addition, she says the Council removed Y’s quantified hours from their EHC Plan and so Y is not receiving provision from a therapist.
2. The Council failed to fully investigate and respond to her concerns about the actions of the Head teacher at Y’s school.
3. The Council tried to pressurise her into mediation with the School.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

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

3. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended). 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.
4. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools unless it relates to special educational needs, when the schools are acting on behalf of the council to secure educational provision as set out in Section F of the young person’s Education, Health and Care Plan.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated the complaint at 1a) above. I have not investigated points b) and c). As explained at paragraph 4 above, we cannot investigate the actions of the school. We can only consider its role in relation to the educational provision set out in Y’s EHC Plan so I have not investigated point 1b).
6. I have not investigated 1c) as if I were to investigate it is unlikely I would find fault in any decision by the Council to offer mediation to try and resolve the issues with the School.
7. I have considered what happened from June 2023 when Y received their EHC Plan up until March 2024 when Ms X complained to the Council.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. I gave Mrs X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments I received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant Law and Guidance

EHC Plans

10. 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. 
11. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section B: Special educational needs.  
• Section C: Health needs related to the child or young person’s SEN.
• Section D: Social care needs related to the child or young person’s SEN.
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 

Special educational provision

12. The council has a duty to “secure” the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)
13. Where the special educational provision is intended to be delivered wholly within a school setting, councils meet their duty by funding a school place for that child, providing the school remains available and accessible to them.

What happened

14. Y has an EHC Plan and attends a specialist school named in their EHC Plan.
15. In June 2023 the Council issued Y’s EHC Plan following an annual review. Under section F, Y’s plan stated they required ‘a programme of support devised by a Speech and Language Therapist to support their speech production and receptive/expressive language skills. The programme will need to be delivered in school by an appropriately trained professional. This will need to happen for 30 minutes daily’. The Plan also said all staff working with Y must have had training from a Speech and Language Therapist in using Y’s communication book.
16. Mrs X complained to the Council, alongside other issues about the School, about the actions of the SALT and that Y was not receiving the speech and language therapy (SALT) provision in their Plan. The Council agreed to liaise with the School about the SALT provision.
17. Mrs X appealed to the Tribunal about the provision in Y’s plan. She later withdrew the appeal. In its submission to the Tribunal the School said the SALT had trained staff to become in-class specialists and whole class training and resources were in place to ensure expertise in every class. They said Y benefitted from the specialist input of SALT around specific difficulties which entailed the development of a programme of sessions which were mainly delivered by class staff through its targeted level of support.
18. In February 2024 the School arranged Y’s annual review. The annual review summarised Y’s progress with communication. It noted Mrs X reported Y had made good progress with their speech and that Y was successfully using a communication book. At the review Y’s teacher agreed to share Y’s SALT programme with Mrs X. The review noted the SALT support Y received to help develop their communication skills. The annual review did not recommend any changes to the education provision set out in the EHC Plan.
19. Mrs X complained to the Council in February 2024. Mrs X complained to the Council about provision at the School and the actions of the Head teacher. The Council offered to meet with Mrs X. It offered mediation or a further annual review where concerns about the School could be raised.

Enquiry response

20. I asked the Council what SALT Y received at the school. It said Y received daily intervention delivered by a member of staff, which was overseen by the SALT initially as part of training for the class team. It said the speech and language therapy plan had been discussed between the School and Mrs Y and it has provided me with a copy of a review of Y’s SALT provision from October 2024. It said Mrs X had not given parental consent for the School’s SALT to undertake any recent formal assessments of Y so these had not happened. It had therefore agreed to commission a SALT report from a private provider, which Mrs X had consented to, to support the progression of Y’s speech and language care plan.
21. It provided a copy of Y’s annual review from November 2024 which noted Y was making progress with their communication and which did not recommend any amendments to Y’s EHC Plan and which set out Y’s communication priorities for the following year.
22. The Council also provided evidence to show the School’s SALT had trained relevant staff in late 2024 to deliver Y’s SALT programme and the School was satisfied Y’s needs as set out in their EHC Plan were being met via class staff.

Analysis

23. I cannot consider concerns Mrs X may have about the content of Y’s EHC Plan. Mrs X was unhappy the Council removed Y’s quantified hours of SALT from their EHC Plan. Mrs X had a right of appeal and it was open to her to use it. Mrs X appealed and then chose to withdraw it. I cannot investigate this. Nor can I consider complaints about documents submitted for the Tribunal as these are inextricably linked to the Tribunal itself.
24. Mrs X’s main concerns relate to the actions of the School and as I have explained at paragraph 5, I cannot investigate those.
25. Mrs X also complained Y had not received the SALT provision set out in section F of their EHC Plan. Y’s School provides an integrated speech and language therapy service and on that basis the Council has met its duty to secure the provision in the Plan. On balance, I am satisfied Y has received the provision set out in their Plan. The School has confirmed Y’s class team are delivering Y’s SALT in line with the EHC Plan, Y’s annual reviews showed Y was making good progress and the School has evidenced that staff members have received training from the SALT. The Council has also agreed to commission a private SALT to assess Y. I have ended my investigation as there is insufficient evidence of fault to investigate further. In addition, as the Council has now agreed to a private assessment, I do not see what else I could achieve by investigating this complaint further.

Back to top

Decision

26. I have ended my investigation as there is insufficient evidence of fault and there is nothing else I can achieve by further investigating this complaint.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman