Summary: Mrs P complained about problems with the Council in issuing and amending her young son’s (Child X) Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan), as well as its alleged failure to provide him speech and language therapy. Based on the available evidence, we found the Council delayed issuing an amended EHC Plan and failed to meet with Mrs P to discuss its proposed amendments. We also found the Council failed to secure the therapy provision identified in Child X’s EHC Plans. This caused an injustice to Child X, as well as Mrs P who paid for privately arranged therapy herself. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy this.

The complaint

1. The complainant’s (Mrs P) complaint relates to her young son (Child X) who has special educational needs (SEN) which need to be met by the Council maintaining an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) for him. Mrs P complains about the Council’s handling of the EHC Plan annual review process, as well as it not making provision of Child X’s needed support. Specifically,
1. The initial EHC Plan issued by the Council for Child X was insufficiently specific and disregarded relevant legislation.
2. The Council failed to meet with Mrs P following her requests to meet and discuss the draft amended EHC Plan.
3. The Council delayed in issuing an amended EHC Plan for Child X.
4. The Council did not secure speech and language therapy (SALT) sessions for Child X which is provision under his EHC Plans. Further, the Council failed to reimburse her for the costs of privately arranged sessions.
5. The Council has not reimbursed Mrs P costs to engage the services of a mediation and advocacy service to raise the issues complained about.
2. In summary, Mrs P alleges that the lack of appropriate support from the Council significantly impacted her son's educational progress and the family's overall experience. She also says she has suffered financial loss having had to pay for SALT provision herself and to appoint a third-party to complain to the Council on her behalf. As a desired outcome, Mrs P wants the Council to take responsibility for the mistakes made, provide staff training to inform service improvements and reimburse her costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. 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).
5. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended).
6. 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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mrs P and the Council, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance. I invited both parties to comment on a draft of my decision. I considered any comments and additional evidence before making a final decision.

Back to top

My findings

Background and legislative framework

Education, Health and Care Plans

8. 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.
9. The Council has a legal 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. 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).

Reviewing the EHC Plan

10. Councils 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. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to amend, maintain or discontinue 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)
11. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.

Appeal rights

12. There is a right of appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SEND Tribunal) against a council’s description of a child or young person’s SEN (Section B of EHC Plan), the special educational provision specified (Section F of EHC Plan, the school or placement specified (Section I of EHC Plan) and amendments to these elements of an EHC Plan. As set out at paragraph three (above), we do not investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal to a tribunal about the same matter, unless it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right.

The SEN Code of Practice 2015

13. Section 9.77 of the Code states that “the local authority must send the draft EHC plan (including the appendices containing the advice and information gathered during the EHC needs assessment) to the child’s parent or to the young person and give them at least 15 days to give views and make representations on the content. During this period, the local authority must make its officers available for a meeting with the child’s parent or the young person on request if they wish to discuss the content of the draft EHC plan.”

Chronology of events

14. In the 2023 Autumn school term, the Council issued an EHC Plan for Child X which made provision for him to receive SALT sessions twice weekly during school time until the end of the 2024 Summer term.
15. Around a month later, the Council informed Mrs P it would be amending Child X’s EHC Plan. The Council issued a draft of the amended version two weeks later. In response, Mrs P made repeated requests to meet with the Council to discuss this. Mrs P also contacted the Council about missed SALT sessions.
16. Between December 2023 and January 2024, Mrs P paid for Child X to receive 6 privately arranged SALT sessions due to him having not received any from the Council. The Council began providing a weekly session from mid-January 2024 and twice weekly from mid-February 2024. She continued to raise the issues subject to her complaint with the Council during this period.
17. In February 2024, the Council issued an amended EHC Plan for Child X, though had not met with Mrs P to discuss this as per her requests.
18. In March 2024, Mrs P engaged an advocacy company to complain to the Council about Child X’s missed SALT sessions, as well as her perceived problems during the EHC Plan process and its review of this. The Council responded in April and May 2024. Still dissatisfied, Mrs P brought her complaint to the LGSCO.

My assessment

Time limits

19. By law, we cannot investigate a complaint which occurred more than 12 months of the complainant becoming aware of the problem, unless there are good reasons to exercise discretion. The alleged fault relates to a period between September 2023 and February 2024. Given Mrs P complained to the LGSCO in May 2025, this means the issues have been made to us beyond that time limit.
20. However, Mrs P spent around six months raising and complaining to the Council about the issues in the first instance. Given we expect complainant’s to exhaust a council’s complaints policy and procedure in the first instance, this would be good reason for exercising our discretion and disapplying the time limit. It would be unfair to penalise the complaint from being investigate when the delay can be said to have been caused by Mrs P’s engagement with the Council to resolve concerns. The scope of my investigation is limited to events which occurred from September 2023 and up to point Mrs P brought her complaint to the LGSCO.

Complaint outcome (a): Initial EHC Plan

21. The first part of Mrs P’s complaint relates to the initial EHC Plan (issued during the 2023 Autumn term) not being sufficiently specific and disregarding relevant legislation. Mrs P complained to the Council that the draft amended EHC Plan contained more specific provision in the area of SALT. Mrs P was therefore dissatisfied about the provision outlined under Section F of the initial EHC Plan.
22. A parent can appeal Section F (special educational provision) of an EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal. They can also appeal against the description of special educational needs in Section B which is used to inform provision. I must therefore consider whether it would have been reasonable for Mrs P to have exercised her appeal rights. On the evidence available, Mrs P opted to complain to the Council in order to secure compliance over the issues she was dissatisfied with. While I appreciate Mrs P had her reasons for taking this approach, there is no evidence to suggest it would have been unreasonable for her to appeal these matters to the SEND Tribunal. We therefore have no jurisdiction to investigate the issues raised about the initial EHC Plan and the alleged lack of detail about provision.

Complaint outcome (b): Failure to meet at review

23. The Council notified Mrs P it was reviewing Child X’s EHC Plan and it issued a draft of this the same month. Mrs P responded by requesting a meeting with the Council before it proceeded to issue a final amended EHC Plan. The Council did not arrange a meeting. When responding to our enquiries about this issue, the Council explained that at the time of the requests, it was dealing with a high amount of correspondence from Mrs P’s representatives, and there was ongoing communication with professionals and Child X’s school. The Council said it felt that all the matters under dispute had been discussed at length and a face-to-face meeting would only have delayed issuing an amended EHC Plan further.
24. Section 9.77 of the Code states the Council “must” make itself available for a meeting on receipt of a request. However, any injustice to Child X would largely centre on the failure to meet leading to a dispute about the contents of the amended EHC Plan. Though this is not specifically complained about, it would in any event be a matter which could reasonably be appealed to the SEND Tribunal, and therefore outside our jurisdiction.

Complaint outcome (c): Delay issuing amended EHC Plan

25. In accordance with Section 9.196 of the Code, the Council has eight weeks to issue the amended EHCP following a decision to amend and amendment notice being issued. There was a delay of 20 days by the Council in issuing the amended EHC Plan from the date it notified Mrs P of its decision to amend this. In response to Mrs P’s complaint, the Council acknowledged the small delay and apologised for this. Given the relatively short delay, I do not consider it is proportionate for the Ombudsman to find fault with the Council.
26. In any event, when considering the provision (Section F) required under the initial and amended EHC Plans, I see no evidence that this delay (which translates into 14 school days) directly caused Child X to not receive any additional provision later than he should have and which can be said to have caused him significant loss, harm or distress. This is because, with the exception of SALT (dealt with below), the provision under both EHC Plans is largely the same.

Complaint outcome (d): SALT provision

27. As set out under Section F of Child X’s initial and amended EHC Plans, the Council was required to secure the following provision:

“Provide Child X with individual speech and language therapy sessions, twice per week (each session up to 45 minutes) with a speech and language therapist during the Autumn term 2023, Spring term 2023 and Summer term 2024. The Speech and Language Therapist will work will directly with Child X during the 45 minutes session, and then liaison will take place during and after the session to support and advise school staff what the SALT team would like them to continue to practise and how they can implement strategies between sessions.”

28. Central to Mrs P’s complaint is that the Council failed to secure this provision for Child X which meant she had to make arrangements for him to receive SALT on a private and chargeable basis. Following it issuing the initial EHC Plan, the Council says it was unable to arrange all 26 SALT sessions for Child X over the entire 2023 Autumn term due to there being no clinician available. While I note the Council’s explanation, it was nevertheless under a legal duty to secure that provision and so I find fault. Mrs P arranged for Child X to receive 2 SALT sessions over this period and incurred costs the Council was responsible for.
29. The Council began providing 1 weekly SALT session from mid-January 2024, and 2 weekly sessions from mid-February 2024. This meant it only provided 6 of the 12 sessions Child X was entitled to receive during this period. Mrs P however paid for him to receive 4 SALT sessions. In response to Mrs P’s complaint, the Council said its intention was to start providing SALT sessions twice weekly from late January 2024, but felt providing these on top of those that Mrs P had arranged would be too much for Child X. However, Mrs P says she was not notified or consulted with about this decision, and certainly I have seen no evidence of this. By my analysis, Mrs P’s private arrangements were made on the basis that the Council had failed to secure the SALT provision. It follows that had the Council complied with its duty to secure this, Mrs P would not have arranged this and at a cost to herself. I see no evidence Child X was offered 2 sessions of SALT across January 2024 and that these were not provided only due to Mrs P having preferred her private arrangements and agreed to cover a cost which the Council was responsible for bearing. This was fault by the Council.
30. Between the point the Council began providing twice weekly sessions and the end of the academic year in July 2024, the Council’s records show Child X missed a further 7 SALT sessions due to a lack of clinician availability. As identified earlier, this is not an acceptable reason for not providing the provision Child X is legally entitled to receive and so the Council was at fault.
31. The Council’s fault caused Mrs P to incur the cost of 8 privately arranged SALT sessions across the Autumn (2023) and Spring (2024) terms and she was caused an injustice. Moreover, taking into account the sessions provided by both the Council and Mrs P between this period, the Council’s records show Child X missed 31 sessions due to its failure to secure these. Two sessions were missed on account of Child X not being in school on the day therapy was planned. Further, considering the duration of Mrs P’s privately arranged sessions, these equated to 11 sessions lasting 45 minutes which is the required session duration as per Child X’s EHC Plans. I therefore find Child X did not receive 20 SALT session, this being provision he needs and is legally entitled to in order to meet his SEN and maintain his educational development. It follows that the Council’s failure has caused him an injustice.

Complaint outcome (e): Professional fees

32. In addition, Mrs P complains she needed to engage a professional advocacy company in order to raise the above issues with the Council under its corporate complaints policy and procedure. She wants the Council to reimburse her costs for doing so. As set out in our Remedies guidance, complainants should not need a solicitor or other professional adviser to help them make a complaint to the LGSCO or the organisation complained about. So, we are unlikely to recommend that fees for this purpose are reimbursed. In my view, the issues raised in Mrs P’s complaint are not sufficiently complex to warrant this. That said, as set out in paragraphs 38 and 40 (above), Mrs P was caused uncertainty and general stress, time and trouble as a result of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Agreed action

33. To remedy the injustice identified, I recommend the Council take the following actions (and within the timeframes) set out below:
1. Within four weeks of the date of my final decision statement, the Council will:

• Send Mrs P a written apology which acknowledges the fault and injustice identified in this decision statement, as well as the specific actions it intends to take to prevent such problems from reoccurring.
• Pay Mrs P to reimburse the costs of the 8 SALT sessions she privately arranged over December 2023 and January and February 2024. It will also pay her a further £200 to remedy her uncertainty, time and trouble.
• Arrange a time for the relevant service to speak with Mrs P as to the 20 missed SALT sessions and review Child X’s goals and progress in this area. Together with Mrs P, it will identify how many of these missed sessions are to be provided to ensure catch-up and that Child X’s needs are met in a way consistent with his EHC Plan. The Council will agree a suitable time and format for these to be provided to Child X without undue delay. Alternatively, the Council will agree to Mrs P arranging for the sessions (lasting up to 45 minutes) to be provided herself and to reimburse her for the cost within 14 days of receiving an invoice.
2. Within three months of my final decision statement, the Council will:
• Carry out a review at a senior level about its capacity to deliver SALT provision across its service. Specifically, the review should look at whether the Council has enough suitable clinicians available to deliver SALT to children and young people with an EHC Plan, and if the arrangements (e.g. to provide cover) it has in place for when a clinician is unavailable are adequate. The Council should identify measures to improve the services in this area and, if applicable, promptly implement these.
• Remind staff with responsibility for reviewing EHC Plans of the importance of facilitating a meeting about amendments when these are requested.

34. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I find fault by the Council which has directly caused an injustice to both Child X and Mrs P. The complaint is upheld and the Council has agreed to my recommendations to remedy this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman