Summary: The Council was at fault. It delayed securing Y’s Speech and Language Therapy provision between September 2025 and February 2026 and their Occupational Therapy provision between September 2025 and April 2026. This caused Ms X uncertainty and avoidable distress and Y the loss of their specialist provision as set out in their Education, Health and Care Plan. There was no fault in how the Council communicated with Ms X during the delays. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to Ms X and Y to remedy the injustice caused to both. The Council agreed to also make a service improvement.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to secure specialist provisions for her child, Y since March 2024, communicated poorly and delayed responding to her complaints about the matter.
2. Ms X said this caused Y and her avoidable distress and financial hardship as she had to secure and privately fund Y’s provisions. Ms X wants the Council to secure Y’s provision, improve its communication with her, reimburse the cost of the therapy sessions she arranged, and make a payment to recognise the avoidable distress caused to her and Y.

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 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)
4. 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)
5. 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

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have investigated Ms X’s complaint the Council failed to secure Occupational therapy (OT) provision from September 2025 until July 2026 and Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) provision between September 2025 and February 2026.
7. I have investigated matters that happened after the Council’s final response to Ms X in June 2025 because I consider they are matters of continuing fault and injustice, and I have sufficient evidence to reach a sound and balanced decision.
8. I have not investigated the Council’s failure to secure Y’s specialist provision between March 2024 and September 2025 because this period was considered as part of Ms X’s previous complaint to us. The Council remedied the lack of provision up until September 2025. We do not reinvestigate matters that have already been considered as part of a previous complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Ms 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 law 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. 

Content of an EHC Plan

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

• Section B: Special educational needs.  
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
• Section G: Any health provision required because of their learning difficulties or disabilities which results in the child or young person having SEN.
• Section I: The name and / or type of educational placement 

Maintaining the EHC Plan

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). 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)

What happened

Background

14. Ms X’s child, Y, has special educational needs and has had an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan since March 2023 which was amended following a Tribunal appeal in January 2024. Ms X complained that Y was not receiving the OT and SaLT provision specified in the plan. Despite the Council commissioning SaLT in October 2024, Y had not received the provision by July 2025. The Council apologised and made a payment to remedy Y’s injustice and the distress caused to Ms X. It also confirmed that the required provision would be in place from September 2025.
15. This complaint is a continuation of Ms X’s complaint because as of September 2025 Y’s therapy provision was still not in place.

Matters subject to investigation

16. In September 2025 Ms X contacted the Council to enquire when Y’s provision would be in place.
17. In early October, the Council issued Y’s amended final EHC Plan. Section F of the plan specified weekly 45-minute SaLT sessions delivered by a qualified and experienced therapist, together with eight 45-minute one-to-one OT sessions with a therapist trained in sensory integration.
18. In November an Occupational therapist from provider A carried out Y’s OT assessment.
19. In January the Council sent Ms X a copy of the OT report.
20. In late January the Council signed an agreement with a therapist to deliver Y’s SaLT sessions over the next 12 weeks.
21. In early February 2026 Ms X confirmed Y’s SaLT assessment took place followed by weekly therapy sessions.
22. Later in February 2026 the Council contacted Ms X and informed her provider A, can deliver Y’s OT sessions but only from June 2026. The Council also consulted with other providers to see if Y could receive the OT provision any earlier.
23. The same day the Council informed Ms X it had found another provider, provider B, which could start within a week of receiving a purchase order by the Council. The Council provided Ms X with the proposed therapy schedule and content.
24. The next day Ms X responded she had reservations about the proposed schedule, she said:
• the proposed schedule did not align with Y’s EHC Plan as sessions were shorter;
• they did not have a sensory clinic as a base; and
• they did not have good reviews online.
25. In March the Council told Ms X it had contacted provider A again which could now offer an OT assistant to deliver Y’s therapy fortnightly from after the spring break from April 2026 onwards and then weekly after that. Ms X said she was not happy the OT would be delivered by an OT assistant only. She asked the Council to confirm that person’s competency level before she decided.
26. In March 2026, the Council shared assurances it had received from provider A stating the assistant was very experienced in working with children with sensory integration needs and they will continue to liaise with an experienced therapist as Y’s sessions would progress. The next day Ms X informed the Council she was not happy to proceed with the OT delivered by an assistant only.
27. In April the Council and Ms X met to discuss their progress in finding a therapist able to deliver Y’s OT sessions. Ms X also contacted three providers hoping to secure a suitable therapist available to deliver Y’s sessions. She forwarded the details of a company, provider C to the Council for them to make contact and procure them for Y’s OT sessions.
28. Due to provider C’s therapist’s availability Ys first session was scheduled for mid-July.
29. In May the Council asked Ms X if she wanted to consider another therapist it had found from provider A who had recently confirmed availability and would be available sooner.
30. Ms X said she preferred to wait until July as the therapist from provider A was not listed on a register for health care professions and only had five years of experience.
31. A few days later the Council appointed provider C to deliver Y’s OT sessions which started in July.

My findings

32. Following our previous decision the Council accepted the fault and said it would arrange Y’s specialist provision in time for the start of the new academic year in September 2025. However, Y’s SaLT sessions did not begin until early February 2026. This was a further delay of approximately 19 weeks and fault.
33. Y’s OT sessions did not begin until mid-July 2026. This was a significant further delay from the date by which the Council had said it would secure the provision. However, the evidence shows that, from April 2026, the Council had identified therapist assistants which Ms X did not accept because she did not believe they had sufficient experience or that the sessions offered were consistent with the provision specified in Y’s EHC Plan.
34. So although there was continued delay in Y receiving OT provision the Council was not responsible for the whole period because there were therapists available from April 2026 which Ms X declined. We therefore find the Council at fault for the continued delay in arranging Y’s OT provision from September 2025 until April 2026, a period of approximately 25 term weeks.
35. The continued delays in arranging both Y’s SaLT and OT provisions caused Y to miss out on their specialist educational needs provision set out in their EHC Plan and avoidable distress and uncertainty to Ms X.
36. I have also considered the Council’s communication with Ms X during this period. We have seen evidence that the Council continued to explore alternative therapists when Ms X did not accept the options identified and remained in contact with her throughout the process. As a result, we have found no fault in the Council’s communication with Ms X.

Back to top

Actions

37. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to take the following actions:
1. Apologise to Ms X and make a total payment of £3,180 to recognise Ms X’s uncertainty and avoidable distress, and Y’s loss of their specialist provision caused by the Council’s delay in securing Y’s SaLT and OT provision between September 2025 and April 2026.

We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.

2. Carry out a review of its commissioning arrangements for therapists to ensure sufficient capacity is available to deliver the therapy provision specified in EHC Plans without delay.
2. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

39. I have found fault and the Council agreed to remedy the injustice caused by the fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman