Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to ensure that Mr X’s child, Z received the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) in their Education, Health and Care Plan between September 2024 and July 2025. Poor communication from the Council during that time added to Mr X’s frustration. The Council will apologise to Mr X and make a payment to acknowledge his frustration and the impact on Z of the missed provision. It will also review its commissioning arrangements to ensure these can meet requirements for SALT and OT provision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to ensure his child, Z, received the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) provision in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Z therefore missed out on therapy they were entitled to. Mr X complained communication with the Council was poor, causing considerable frustration and distress.

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. 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

5. Mr X complained about the time taken by the Council to reimburse him after it agreed to pay for SALT he had sourced and paid for. The Council has already apologised for this delay and paid Mr X £250 for the frustration caused. I have not investigated this further as the apology and payment are an appropriate remedy for his injustice.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mr 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

EHC 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.
9. 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

10. Z has a diagnosis of autism. Z had an EHC Plan finalised in August 2024 and at that time went to a nursery.
11. The EHC Plan included 15.75 hours of direct SALT and 22 hours of OT input during the following year.
12. In September 2024 the Council referred Z to six providers of SALT and six providers of OT.
13. In October 2024 the Council contacted Mr X to ask him for the details of the Speech and Language Therapist he had contacted. It also advised it was open to arranging a personal budget for the provision.
14. There is no record of the Council taking any further action until Mr X contacted it in December 2024 to advise he had arranged SALT that would start in January 2025. Mr X received no response and so emailed the Council again in January 2025.
15. Between January and May 2025 Mr X arranged eight hours of SALT provision for Z, for which the Council later reimbursed him.
16. Mr X complained to the Council in February 2025. In its response the Council acknowledged its failure to fulfil the therapy provision for Z and apologised for its unsatisfactory standard of communication. The Council gave Mr X a named contact to improve communication going forward.
17. In February 2025 the Council advised Mr X it was liaising with an Occupational Therapist to source the 22 hours of therapy. The Council contacted Mr X again in March 2025 to advise him the OT could offer remote sessions. Mr X responded that he would consider this for Z, but the Council took no further action until April 2025.
18. In March 2025 Mr X complained to the Council under stage two of the complaints procedure. In its response the Council again apologised for its failure to fulfil Z’s therapy provision but said it understood the concerns had largely been resolved.
19. Z received some of their OT provision in May 2025 and received a baseline assessment report.
20. Mr X contacted the Council twice during May to request an update about plans for the remaining provision. The Council took four weeks to respond.
21. Z received the remaining hours of OT support in June 2025. The Council said Z received 22 hours of OT provision, provided through a combination of direct sessions and administration time.
22. The Council issued Z with an updated final EHC Plan in March 2025. The new plan made the same provision for SALT and OT. This is now provided within their special school setting.

Findings

23. The Council has a non-delegable duty to ensure a child receives the provision set out in section F of their EHC Plan. Z’s EHC Plan included 15.75 hours SALT during the academic year September 2024 and July 2025. They missed 7.75 hours of provision and Z received no SALT provision between September 2024 and January 2025. This was fault which meant Z missed out on some therapy and on the opportunity to benefit from this sooner, in the year before starting school.
24. Z should have received 22 hours of OT during the academic year September 2024 to July 2025. Z did receive their full provision. However, this was arranged remotely and provided at the end of the year, in May and June. They received no provision from August 2024 to May 2025. This was fault and meant Z missed the opportunity to benefit from this therapy sooner.
25. There is evidence to show that throughout the year the communication from the Council was below its expected standards. The Council did apologise to Mr X about this. However, the poor standards of communication continued after its apology. This was fault and caused significant frustration to Mr X.

Back to top

Action

26. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• apologise to Mr X and pay him £200 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay in arranging therapy provision and its poor communication.
• pay him £500 to acknowledge the impact on Z of the delays in arranging therapy and of not receiving the Speech and Language Therapy as set out in their EHC Plan.
27. Within two months of the final decision, the Council has agreed to reviews its commissioning arrangements to ensure that going forward these can meet timescales for EHC needs assessments and provision of SALT and OT, once a plan is finalised.
28. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

29. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman