Summary: Miss Y says the Council failed to provide her son, Mr X’s, speech and language therapy (SALT), delayed the annual review of his Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and did not provide suitable transport to his college. She says this distressed her and Mr X and caused Mr X to miss provision. The Council was at fault in failing to deliver EHC Plan provision and not properly managing Miss Y’s complaint. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a financial payment. We have not investigated Miss Y’s complaint about the delayed EHC Plan review because we have already investigated this as a separate complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to deliver SALT provision in her son, Mr X’s EHC Plan, delayed his EHC Plan review and did not provide him with suitable transport to college. Miss Y says this distressed her and Mr X and Mr X missed provision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. We cannot question whether a Council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have not investigated matters relating to Mr X’s EHC Plan prior to September 2024. This is a late complaint and there is not enough reason to investigate now. I reference events prior to September 2024 for context in this matter.
8. I have not investigated the delay in the Council’s annual review of Mr X’s EHC Plan. The Ombudsman has already investigated this. I reference the annual review for context in this matter.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I have read Mr X’s complaint and spoken to Miss Y about it on the phone.
10. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Miss Y and the Council had the opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background Information

Transport arrangements

12. Councils must arrange for the transport it considers necessary for an adult with an EHC plan to attend their education or training placement.
13. Councils should have an appeals process in place for parents who wish to appeal about the eligibility of their child for travel support.
14. The Council’s post-16 travel policy statement says it does not automatically provide transport for special education needs and disabilities (SEND) students aged over 16 years. It the student is attending school or college over three miles from home, the Council will consider providing independent travel training and/or a personal travel payment (PTP) which goes directly to the student and their family. If the Council recognises a PTP may not be appropriate, it will consider organising travel for the student on one of its existing routes if possible. The Council has a two stage appeal process for SEND students who want to appeal against a decision about travel assistance.

EHC Plans

15. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an 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. 
16. 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 I: The name and/or type of educational placement

17. 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) 
18. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 
• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time
19. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. Following the review meeting the council must issue a decision to either amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
20. 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.

Complaint handling

21. The Council’s complaints policy says a person who is not satisfied with its complaint response can ask it to escalate the matter. The Council will then aim to give a full response within 20 working days.

What I found

22. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.

EHC Plan provision

23. In March 2022 the Council issued an EHC Plan for Mr X. Section F of the plan required the Council to provide weekly SALT sessions delivered by a therapist.
24. The Council carried out an annual review of Mr X’s EHC Plan in April 2023.
25. In May 2024 Mr X’s school stopped delivering weekly SALT sessions for him after the SALT therapist left. By this time Mr X was over 16 years old.
26. In August 2024 the Council issued Mr X’s final amended EHC Plan following the annual review in April 2023.
27. In October 2024 Miss Y appealed to the Tribunal against the final amended EHC Plan issued in August 2024.
28. Later that month the Council carried out an annual review of Mr X’s EHC Plan. The review confirmed the Plan still required the Council to provide weekly SALT sessions for Mr X delivered by a therapist.
29. In early December 2024, Mr X’s school told Miss Y his new SALT therapist had started.
30. In January 2025, Miss Y complained to the Council about the lack of SALT provision for Mr X.
31. In February 2025, the Council responded to Miss Y’s complaint. The Council said Mr X’s school had not had a permanent SALT therapist from June 2024 to October 2024. It said the school had made reasonable attempts to support Mr X with a SALT therapist from another school providing consultation and oversight. The Council did not uphold Miss Y’s complaint.
32. Miss Y was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked it to escalate her complaint.
33. In September 2025 Miss Y asked the Ombudsman to investigate because she was not satisfied with the Council’s response. She wanted the Council to apologise and compensate Mr X for missed SALT provision.
34. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had failed to escalate Miss Y’s complaint in February 2025

Travel assistance

35. In 2024 Mr X was attending a school within the Council’s area. In June 2024 Miss Y applied to the Council for continued transport assistance for Mr X for the school year starting in September 2024 . She said Mr X could not travel safely alone and went to school in a Council-provided shared taxi. The Council agreed to continue providing shared taxi transport for Mr X to his school for one year from September 2024.
36. As stated in paragraph 27 Miss Y appealed to the Tribunal in October 2024. She wanted the Council to amend Sections B and F in Mr X’s EHC Plan. For Section I, Miss Y had agreed with the Council for Mr X to attend a different education setting at college Z, a specialist college located in another council area. She would not agree to the Council naming college Z in Section I however until it had arranged transport assistance for Mr X to get there.
37. In November 2024, Miss Y applied to the Council for travel assistance for Mr X to attend college Z. Miss Y said the college start date was pending while she waited for the Council to approve travel assistance.
38. In early December 2024 the Council responded to Miss Y’s travel assistance application and agreed to provide a PTP for one year.
39. Miss Y appealed against the Council’s travel assistance decision. The Council did not uphold Miss Y’s appeal. It said a PTP was its main offer for post-16 year olds and it had no existing transport running to college Z.
40. Later in December 2024, Miss Y made a stage two appeal against the Councils’ travel assistance decision. The Council did not uphold the appeal and said the offer of a PTP aligned with the Council’s policy and statutory guidance.
41. In April 2025 the Council told Miss Y it had agreed to provide a PTP for one year to assist Mr X travelling to college Z. The Council then invited Miss Y to apply for travel assistance by the end of June 2025 for it to be in place by the start of Mr X’s college term in September 2025.
42. In June 2025 the Tribunal heard Miss Y’s appeal. The Council confirmed to the Tribunal it offered PTP to help meet the costs of Mr X’s travel to college Z. Miss Y told the Tribunal she was satisfied there were appropriate transport arrangements in place for Mr X. The Tribunal ordered college Z be named in Section I of Mr X’s EHC Plan.
43. In September 2025 Miss Y asked the Ombudsman to investigate because she was not satisfied with the Council’s response. She wanted the Council to apologise, review Mr X’s transport assistance application and compensate him for travel costs.
44. In October 2025 Mr X’s father contacted the Council to say he would be transporting Mr X to college Z and asking for the PTPs to be paid to him. The Council started paying monthly PTPs to Mr X’s father backdated to September.
45. In November 2025 Mr X’s father told the Council Mr X had stopped attending college Z. The Council stopped paying PTPs to Mr X’s father.
46. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it had failed to escalate Miss Y’s complaint in February 2025 and it had assessed Mr X’s transport assistance application against its post-16 travel policy.

My findings

EHC Plan provision

47. Paragraph 17 says the Council had a duty to make sure Mr X received the special education provision in his EHC Plan. Mr X’s plan said he should have weekly SALT sessions. Mr X did not receive weekly SALT sessions from September 2024 to November 2024. I recognise Mr X’s school tried to provide SALT support to him during this time. However, the Council failed to deliver Mr X’s SALT provision in line with his EHC Plan from September 2024 to November 2024. The Council was at fault. This caused Mr X to miss provision.

Complaint handling

48. Paragraph 21 says a person complaining to the Council can ask it to escalate the matter if they are not satisfied with its response.
49. Miss Y complained to the Council about Mr X’s missing SALT provision in December 2024. The Council responded in February 2025 and Miss Y immediately asked to escalate the complaint. The Council failed to escalate the complaint and did not respond to Miss Y. It should have done so. The Council was at fault. This frustrated Mr X and Miss Y.

Transport Assistance

50. Paragraph 12 says the Council should arrange necessary transport for an adult with an EHC Plan to attend college or training.
51. Paragraph 14 summarises the Council’s post-16 travel statement for SEND students. I recognise that the Council had provided taxi transport to Mr X’s previous education setting and Miss Y wanted the same for Mr X to get to college Z. However, the Council had discretion over whether to offer Mr X transport assistance to college Z. Mr X was attending college more than three miles from home. The Council had no existing travel routes to Mr X’s college and offered a PTP. This offer was in line with its post-16 travel statement. The Council had no obligation to offer taxi transport to Mr X. The Council was entitled to make the decision to offer Mr X PTP and I cannot question its merits. The Council was not at fault.
52. The Council’s post-16 travel statement has a two stage process for SEND students to appeal against transport decisions. Miss Y appealed against the Council’s decision to offer Mr X PTP. The Council considered Miss Y’s appeal in two stages and did not uphold it. The Council dealt with Miss Y’s appeal correctly and in line with its post-16 travel statement. The Council was not at fault.

Back to top

Action

53. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mr X and Miss Y by the fault I have identified, the Council had agreed to take the following actions within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise to Mr X and Miss Y for not delivering the SALT provision in Mr X’s EHC Plan and not properly managing Miss Y’s complaint. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mr X £150 to recognise the lack of SALT provision to Mr X from September 2024 to November 2024
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

55. I have completed my investigation. I find fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mr X and Miss Y.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman