Summary: Ms X complained the Council did not provide her child, Y, with full-time education, speech and language therapy and that it also wrongfully withdrew Y’s speech and language therapy provision. There was fault by the Council which caused injustice to Y and Ms X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council:
1. failed to provide her child, Y, with full-time education from September 2023 to October 2025
2. failed to provide Y with Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) from April 2024 to April 2025
3. withdrew Y’s SALT provision wrongfully in September 2025.
2. Ms X said as a result, Y lost out on full-time education and SALT provision and that the matter affected Y’s mental health, physical health and her social interaction with peers. Ms X also said the matter caused her distress, worry, anxiety and uncertainty.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. The courts have said that where someone has used their right of appeal, reference or review or remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, the Ombudsman cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)
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

What I have and have not investigated

10. 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)
11. I have not exercised discretion to investigate matters before April 2024. These are late complaints, and I consider it reasonable for Ms X to have complained about the matters earlier. There are no good reasons to investigate them now.
12. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
13. In this case, although the Council issued its final response to Ms X’s complaint in May 2025, I have exercised discretion to investigate matters until October 2025. This is because I find it unreasonable to refer Ms X back to the Council to deal with matters between May 2025 and October 2025 given the Tribunal referred Ms X back to the Ombudsman to consider her complaint at point ‘c’.
14. Therefore, I have investigated matters from April 2024 to October 2025. This covers the period from when Y’s 2024 annual review meeting was held to when the 2025 Tribunal order was issued.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

15. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
16. 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

Education, Health and Care Plans

17. 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.
18. Education other than at school (EOTAS) is a package of education which is council-funded and should be in section F of the EHC Plan.
19. 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 this duty to arrange provision is owed personally to the child and is non delegable. This means if a council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the Council remains responsible. (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)
20. Councils must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The review process includes a review meeting, and the subsequent decision, which have appeal rights. The process is only complete when the council issues a decision about the review.
21. Within four weeks of a review meeting, the council must notify the child’s parent of its decision to maintain, amend or cease the EHC Plan. Where the decision is to amend the EHC Plan, the council must then issue any final amended Plan within eight weeks of the ‘amendment notice’. Therefore, a final EHC Plan must be issued within 12 weeks of the review meeting.
22. Where a parent or young person disagrees with the contents of the EHC Plan there is a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) tribunal when the final plan is issued.
23. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207). The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents or young person. If the parent or young person goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the tribunal comes to its decision and the changes are put in place in line with the timescales allowed, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded.
24. Once the tribunal issues a decision, the council must carry out the order within a fixed period. Where the order requires the council to amend the special educational provision specified in an EHC Plan, the council shall issue the amended EHC Plan within 5 weeks of the order being made.

Alternative Provision

25. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 (the Act) says each local authority will make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school, or otherwise than at school, for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them. The Act goes on to say suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he or she may have.
26. If the council decides it must arrange alternative provision, it needs to arrange provision based on the child’s individual needs. It should also have a review process to ensure the provision remains in the child’s best interests. Councils can decide a child cannot cope with full-time provision, especially where the reason for their non-attendance is medical. When this happens, the Council should provide reasons for the amount of provision it arranges.
27. If a child has an EHC Plan, the council also has an ongoing duty to arrange the support guaranteed by the Plan. However, this might not always be possible, such as where the SEN support is designed for the child’s normal classroom setting.
28. Councils should also think about the steps needed to reintegrate the child back into their usual school setting, through ongoing conversations with relevant professionals and the parents.
29. Personal Budget – is the amount of money the council has identified it needs to pay to secure the provision in a child or young person’s EHC Plan.

Council’s complaints procedure

30. The Council has a two-stage complaints procedure, and its responses should be issued within 20 working days at both stages.

Background

31. Ms X’s child, Y, has some health conditions and special educational needs (SEN). Y has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and she attended School 1.
32. I have referred to matters that happened in 2023 for context.
33. Following Y’s final EHC Plan in 2023, Ms X appealed against the contents of the Plan, including the SEN provision in section F. The provision included:
1. a broad and balanced curriculum offered with access to small groupwork / 1:1 outside of the classroom.
2. 30 minutes of 1:1 weekly session of social communication with an adult.
3. precision teaching in basic literacy and numeracy concepts integrated throughout the school day.
4. emotional regulation / structured relational approach integrated throughout the school day and 1:1 fortnightly sessions to be explored.
5. an equivalent of 32.5 hours per week funded provision to be provided by a mainstream school.
34. In September 2023, Y stopped attending School 1. The same month, the Council started providing Y with alternative provision of 1:1 tuition for 15 hours per week at a tuition centre.
35. In late 2023, speech and language therapy (SALT) assessments were completed for Y.
36. In December, during the Tribunal appeal process, Ms X said the Council agreed to include SALT provision in section F of Y’s EHC Plan working document.

Key events

2024

37. In April, an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan was conducted. The Council agreed to consult with some educational settings. Ms X said if no placement was offered to Y, then an education other than at school (EOTAS) package should be put in place for Y from September 2024.
38. Between April 2024 and July 2024, the Council continued to provide Y with 1:1 tuition for 15 hours per week at a tuition centre. The Council did not provide SALT to Y.
39. In July, the Tribunal hearing was held and in August, the Tribunal issued its order for an EOTAS package to be added to Y’s EHC Plan.
40. On 27 August, the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan which included an EOTAS package. The provision in section F included:
1. an equivalent of 32.5 hours per week when Y was able to attend school.
2. a total of 37.5 hours per academic year of SALT which included 25 hours direct 1:1 session.
3. a total of 24 hours occupational therapy (OT) input which included 12 direct hours with Y.
41. There was a number of contacts between Ms X, the Council and some providers about Y’s EOTAS package. These included, Ms X’s tuition venue preference, and the tuition hours as Ms X said Y previously received 3 hours daily at a tuition centre which seemed to have been her limit. Ms X also requested that Y’s EOTAS tuition be delivered by two different providers.
42. In September, Y started receiving her EOTAS package which included:

• 7 hours of tuition with Provider 1 at Ms X’s home and a day at a local library.
• 8 hours of tuition with Provider 2 at an agreed local venue.
• personal budgets for physical activities.

43. On 16 September, the day Y started tuition with Provider 2, Ms X told the provider she would prefer a female tutor. Provider 2 told Ms X that due to her late request and the recruitment process, it would be able to provide a female tutor by end of September.
44. Ms X raised concerns about Provider 1 (tutor’s unprofessional conduct and the use of the local library) and Provider 2 (gender of the tutor and Ms X’s request for a change of tuition venue to home address which the provider’s policy did not allow).
45. On 20 September, Ms X told the Council she no longer wanted Provider 2, and she asked the Council to commission another provider (Provider 3) to deliver the whole of the 15-hour weekly tuition to Y.
46. The Council considered Ms X’s request, and it agreed to commission Provider 3 after the notice periods for Provider 1 and 2 had ended.
47. On 26 September, the Council served Provider 1 and Provider 2 with the agreed 20-day cancellation notice period which meant the contract would end on 15 October. Ms X informed the Council that Provider 3 was immediately available to provide Y with the tuition and so she disagreed with the Council’s decision to commission Provider 3 until the notice period for the other providers ended.
48. On 3 October, Provider 1 told the Council that due to working relationship breakdown between it and Ms X, it would no longer provide tuition to Y from 7 October. But Provider 2 told the Council it was available and could continue to deliver Y’s tuition until the end of the notice period. Provider 2 issued the Council with an invoice from 16 September to 15 October.
49. Based on both providers’ responses, the Council commissioned Provider 3:

• from 7 October to provide 7-hour weekly 1:1 tuition to Y (which was previously delivered by Provider 1) and
• from 15 October to provide Y with the full 15-hour weekly 1:1 tuition.

50. The Council also provided Y with 2 hours of physical activities via a personal budget. This was a total of 17 hours per week EOTAS package.

2025

51. In January, an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan was held. The Council agreed to explore peer interaction sessions for Y and to amend Y’s EHC Plan.
52. From January 2025 to July 2025, the Council increased Y’s EOTAS 1:1 tuition to 16 hours per week to include an additional 1 hour per week peer interaction session.
53. In March, the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan and the SEN provision in section F included:
1. an EOTAS package of 15 hours of academic learning and a personal budget for 2 hours a week of physical activity.
2. a total of 37.5 hours per academic year of SALT which included 25 hours direct 1:1 session.
3. a total of 24-hour OT input which included 12 direct hours with Y.
54. The same month Ms X submitted an appeal to the Tribunal which included section F (the SEN provision) and section I (the name and/or type of educational placement) in the Plan. The Tribunal hearing was scheduled for 2026.
55. In May and June, Ms X informed the Council that she felt Provider 3 could not meet Y’s needs. The Council agreed to consult with other providers, and in July the Council terminated Provider 3’s contract.
56. Between 1 May to 17 July, the Council provided Y with SALT provision.
57. In August, Ms X said the Council informed her that a new provider (Provider 4) would deliver the EOTAS package to Y from September for a 14-week period.
58. On 5 September, Provider 4 started providing Y with her EOTAS package but by the end of October, the provider informed the Council it wanted to end its contract. Provider 4 said this was due to Ms X’s demands and a breakdown in their working relationship. The Council asked if Provider 4 could continue providing Y with the package until it was able to commission an alternative provider. Provider 4 maintained it was unable to continue providing Y’s EOTAS package. Ms X also raised concerns with the Council about Provider 4 staff conduct and how it delivered Y’s provision.
59. Provider 4 stopped providing Y with tuition on 24 October. Ms X said the Council only provided Y with 7 weeks provision instead of the 14-week provision it told her, and she said Y had since been left without provision.
60. In September, Y was discharged from the SALT service and the Council stopped providing her with SALT provision. Ms X disagreed and made a complaint to the Council about its decision to end SALT without completing another annual review for Y.
61. The Council rejected Ms X’s complaint about the SALT provision withdrawal, it said this was because it was linked with her ongoing Tribunal appeal. Ms X then added the Council’s SALT withdrawal matter to her March 2025 appeal.
62. In October 2025, the Tribunal responded to Ms X, and it issued an order specifically in relation to the alleged wrongful SALT withdrawal and asked that the matter be considered by the Ombudsman. This was because the matter was about Council’s failure to provide Y with the specified SALT provision in her EHC Plan.

Ms X’s complaints

63. In October 2024, Ms X made a formal complaint to the Council about its failure to provide Y with the weekly 15-hour tuition for 3 weeks by the newly commissioned Provider 3. Ms X also complained about the Council’s failure to provide Y with all the provision in her EHC Plan including full-time education and its failure to provide Y with SALT since April 2024.
64. The Council issued its stage 1 and stage 2 responses to Ms X’s complaint in February 2025 and May 2025 respectively. The Council:

• acknowledged the breakdown in the working relationship between Ms X and Providers 1 and 2. But the Council maintained it could commission Provider 3 to continue providing Y with the 15-hour EOTAS tuition after its contracts with previous Provider 1 and 2 ended on 7 October 2024 and 15 October 2024 respectively.
• said it was unable to make a finding in relation to Ms X’s complaint that Y’s EOTAS package did not equate to full-time education. The Council said it was a matter to be addressed by the Tribunal as Ms X had submitted an appeal against section F (SEN provision) and section I (the named setting) of Y’s final EHC Plan.
• accepted it did not provide Y with SALT from April 2024 to April 2025, and it made a £500 financial remedy to Ms X.

65. The Council’s stage 2 response was issued after Ms X complained to the Ombudsman.
66. In its response to our enquiries, the Council said:

• after Provider 4’s involvement with Y’s EOTAS package ended in October 2025, Ms X informed the Council she wanted Y to return to Provider 3. The Council said it informed Ms X that it would need to re-commission the previous provider. The Council said this was the reason Y did not receive education for a 3-week period while it was in the process of re-commissioning Provider 3.
• Y is currently receiving 15 hours of tuition per week with Provider 3.
• SALT had been discharged as it was clinically determined Y no longer required the service.
• it had been consulting with various schools and working with Ms X through the appeal process, but no school had confirmed it could meet Y’s needs.

67. Subsequently, the Council informed the Ombudsman that it recommenced the delivery of Y’s SALT provision in early 2026.

Analysis

Full-time Alternative Provision / EOTAS Tuition

April 2024 to July 2024

68. Prior to Y’s April 2024 annual review process, section F provision of her previous EHC Plan stated she would receive “an equivalent of 32.5 hours per week funded provision to be provided by a mainstream school”.
69. It is unclear how the Council reached its decision to provide Y with alternative provision of 1:1 tuition for 15 hours per week at a tuition centre when she was unable to attend school between April 2024 and July 2024. There was no evidence to show how the Council’s decision was based on Y’s individual needs and that it ensured the provision was in her best interests. This was fault. It caused Ms X uncertainty in not knowing whether the Council properly considered providing Y with full-time education when she was out of school during this period.
70. However, Ms X confirmed that the 3-hour daily alternative provision tuition Y received at the tuition centre during this period seemed to have been Y’s limit. Therefore, I find on balance, that this mitigated any injustice that might have been caused to Y.

September 2024 to March 2025

71. I note Y’s August 2024 final EHC Plan stated, “an equivalent of 32.5 hours per week should be provided to her when she was able to attend school”, but the Plan did not specify how many EOTAS tuition hours should be provided to Y.
72. Ms X’s right of appeal against the contents of Y’s EHC Plan was engaged when the final Plan was issued in August 2024. I find it was reasonable for Ms X to have appealed against the content of the Plan as it related to how many hours Y should have received as part of her EOTAS package. Therefore, I cannot make a finding on whether the Council failed to provide Y with full-time EOTAS package during this period as Y’s August 2024 EHC Plan did not state the specific total hours of tuition to be provided to Y under the EOTAS package. This was a matter for the Tribunal, and it is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
73. But I find no evidence to show how the Council then reached its decision to provide Y with the 15 hours per week EOTAS tuition from September 2024 and how it satisfied itself that a total of 15 hours tuition was sufficient to meet Y’s needs. This was fault. It caused uncertainty to Ms X in not knowing whether Y received suitable tuition hours to meet her needs from when Y started receiving the 15 hours per week EOTAS tuition to when her 2025 final EHC Plan was issued (September 2024 to March 2025).
74. I find no fault by the Council for commissioning Provider 3 to deliver the EOTAS tuition to Y after the expiration of the notice periods of Providers 1 and 2 on 7 October 2024 and 15 October 2024 respectively. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make, and the tuition package was available to Y to access during the notice periods. This was not fault.

March 2025 to October 2025

75. Y’s March 2025 EHC Plan specified she would receive “an EOTAS package of 15 hours of academic learning and a personal budget for 2 hours a week of physical activity”. The Council provided these hours to Y from March to October 2025 when Provider 4 ended its contract due to a working relationship breakdown between it and Ms X. This was not fault.
76. I find the Council acted promptly to contact the previous provider (Provider 3) and started the re-commissioning process as requested by Ms X. This was not fault.

SALT Provision

77. The Council already accepted it did not provide Y with SALT provision from April 2024 to April 2025, and it made a £500 financial payment to Ms X for this failure.
78. The Ombudsman can only hold councils to account for provision in a final EHC Plan, not for something conceded via the working document process during an appeal. Only the final EHC Plan provides a legal entitlement to provision and a duty under section 42 of Children and Families Act 2014.
79. Therefore, I can only consider SALT matters from August 2024 when the Council added the SALT provision (a total of 37.5 hours per academic year which included 25 hours of direct 1:1 session) to Y’s final EHC Plan after the Tribunal order.
80. The Council failed to provide Y with the agreed SALT provision in her EHC Plan from September 2024 (start of a new academic year) to April 2025. This was fault and it meant Y lost out on SALT provision over a significant period of two academic terms. I consider the £500 financial payment the Council made to Ms X is not sufficient or in line with our guidance on remedies. This will be addressed under the ‘action’ section below.
81. From 1 May to 17 July 2025, the Council provided SALT to Y. This was not fault.
82. In September 2025, the Council stopped providing Y with the SALT provision set out in her March 2025 EHC Plan. While I note the Council’s point that the provision was stopped because Y was discharged from the SALT service, I find the Council failed to follow the expected process of conducting another annual review for Y to determine what SEN provision was still required to meet her needs. This was fault and the Council failed to discharge its legal duty under section 42 of Children and Families Act 2014 to provide Y with the SALT provision in her Plan until an amended EHC Plan was issued. As a result, Y missed out on SALT provision from September 2025 to October 2025 (the end of this investigation).

Complaint Handling

83. There were delays by the Council with issuing its stage 1 and stage 2 responses to Ms X’s complaint. There was approximately a 3-month delay at stage 1 (October 2024 – February 2025) and approximately a 2-month delay at stage 2 (February 2025 – May 2025). The Council’s complaint handling was not in line with its complaints procedure timescales. These were faults and it caused avoidable distress to Ms X.

Back to top

Action

84. To remedy the injustice caused by the faults identified, the Council has agreed to complete the following within one month of the final decision:

• apologise in writing to Ms X to acknowledge the injustice caused to her by the Council’s failings as identified above. The apology should be in accordance with our guidance, Making an effective apology.
• complete the next annual review process of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan which is due in March 2026 and ensure timescales for completion of the review are adhered to. Also ensure Ms X has the opportunity to appeal against any decision to remove Speech and Language Therapy, if that is the outcome
• make Ms X a payment of £300 in recognition of Y’s loss of SALT provision for two academic terms (September 2024 to April 2025). This payment is separate from the £500 payment the Council already made to Ms X
• make Ms X a payment of £100 to acknowledge the Council’s failure to provide Y with Speech and Language Therapy from September 2025 to October 2025. The Council should then continue to make £50 per month payment to Ms X to acknowledge any ongoing loss of SALT provision to Y until when it recommenced the delivery of the provision. The ongoing monthly payment must not exceed a maximum period of 6 months (from November 2025).

85. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

86. I find fault by the Council causing injustice to Y and Ms X. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman