Summary: The Council failed to ensure Miss X’s daughter, Miss Z received Maths tuition and Speech and Language provision in line with her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between 2024 and 2025. It also delayed amending Miss Z’s EHC Plan following an annual review in December 2024 by 23 weeks. The Council agreed to apologise to Miss X and Miss Z and make a payment to acknowledge the injustice caused.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained on behalf of her daughter Miss Z.
2. Miss X complained the Council failed to ensure Maths and Speech and Language Therapy provision as outlined in Miss Z’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was secured and provided since June 2024. She also complained the Council delayed issuing Miss Z’s amended EHC Plan by 23 weeks following an annual review in December 2024.
3. Miss X says the faults have impacted on Miss Z’s educational development which has caused distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
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. 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)
8. I have investigated Miss X’s concerns about a lack of provision from June 2024. It was reasonable for Miss X to have complained earlier about any loss of provision prior to June 2024.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

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.
12. 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)

Annual Reviews

13. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan following a review, 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.

Timescales following an appeal to the SEND tribunal

14. 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.
15. The Council has timescales to follow when the tribunal issues an order. If the Tribunal orders the Council to amend the content of an EHC Plan then it must issue the amended Plan within five weeks of the order.

What happened

16. Miss X has an adult daughter, Miss Z. Miss Z has disabilities and special educational needs and as such has an EHC Plan. In January 2024 the Council issued an amended EHC Plan for Miss Z which showed she would attend a further educational college (College A). The EHC Plan outlined Miss Z would receive a personal budget to fund Maths tuition.
17. Miss X appealed to the SEND tribunal against the Council’s decision to remove Speech and Language (SALT) provision from the EHC Plan.
18. In March 2024 Miss X complained to the Council about both the decision to not include SALT in the EHC Plan and that no personal budget had yet been provided for the Maths tuition.
19. The Council responded in April 2024. It said the SEND tribunal was dealing with the SALT provision. It acknowledged a delay in arranging funding for Maths. It said it had now provided College A with additional funding for a tuition package.
20. Miss X said she told the Council in April 2024 that the proposed Maths package did not meet Miss Z’s needs as it was either online or required travel to another college over 10 miles way which would cause her to miss some lessons at College A.
21. The is no records of any other complaint or oversight from the Council between April 2024 and December 2024 when the annual review took place. The Council did not send Miss X a notice indicating whether it intended to amend the Plan or not following the annual review.
22. In January 2025 the SEND Tribunal heard Miss X’s appeal and ordered the Council to amend Miss Z’s EHC Plan to include SALT provision. The Council issued the amended Plan a couple of days later to include the SALT provision which was:
• Six hours of direct SALT time per year by a Speech and Language therapist (to be delivered as appropriate across the academic year).
• Five hours of indirect time per year for liaison with parents and other professionals.
23. In early February Miss X complained to the Council as it had failed to start Miss Z’s SALT provision as outlined in the Plan. She further complained that Miss Z was still not receiving any Maths provision due to the unsuitability of the arrangement setup by College A. She also said no further action had been taken since the December 2024 annual review.
24. The Council contacted College A in March 2025 to enquire about the Maths provision. It said it was aware Miss Z had not accessed the provision and therefore it asked College A to return the funding which it agreed to do. Records show the Council commissioned a Maths provider for two hours a week for Miss Z which started during May 2025.
25. Records show the Council agreed funding for the SALT provision and agreed for a provider to begin the sessions straight away. However, it became apparent during April 2025 that the provider no longer existed. SALT provision began in May 2025.
26. The Council responded to Miss X’s complaint in May 2025. It apologised for delay in commissioning the SALT provision and offered Miss X £750 to recognise the injustice this caused. It said it would deliver the missed sessions before the end of the summer term. It further apologised for delays issuing a notice following the annual review. It said it now done so and said the amended Plan would be issued within the next few days.
27. The Council issued Miss Z’s draft EHC Plan in May 2025 but did not issue the final Plan until August 2025 which was a delay of 23 weeks. Records show Miss X has appealed this Plan to the SEND tribunal.
28. Miss X remained unhappy and complained to us.

The Council’s response to us

29. The Council accepted faults in relation to the handling of the annual review process and the implementation of some of the provision set out in Miss Z’s EHC Plan. This included not following statutory timescales and inconsistencies in securing provision.
30. With regards to SALT provisions it said it has implemented new procedures to ensure it now has an agreed group of approved independent SALT therapists and procedures so it can secure assessments and agreed provision with minimal delay.
31. The Council said it is increasing staffing capacity and a new assessment team is in place to prevent annual review delays going forward. It said annual review timeliness is tracked weekly so prompt management action can be taken where issues are identified.

My findings

Speech and language provision

32. Miss Z’s EHC Plan did not include SALT provision during 2024. However, the Council should have ensured SALT provision was in place and secured from the point it issued the amended EHC Plan in January 2025 following the conclusion of the appeal. The SALT provision was not in place until May which was a delay of five months and fault. It meant Miss Z lost the opportunity to receive the provision earlier.

Maths tuition

33. The Council accepted an initial delay in providing College A with funding for the Maths tuition between January and April 2024. That delay was fault. Records show Miss X told the Council that the Maths arrangement provided by College A was not suitable because of travel and missing other lessons. There is no evidence of any checking or oversight of this from the Council. That is fault. It was not until Miss X complained again in early 2025 that the Council took action and commissioned suitable tuition from May 2025 onwards. It meant Miss Z did not receive any Maths tuition for just under five school terms.

Annual review delays

34. Miss Z’s annual review took place in December 2024 but the final amended EHC Plan was not issued until August 2025 which was a delay of 23 weeks and fault.

Injustice

35. The faults outlined above have caused an injustice to both Miss X and Miss Z. Miss Z did not receive Maths tuition for a long period due to drift and delay and there was a delay in her receiving the SALT provision following the SEND tribunal order. This had an impact on her education and caused distress and uncertainty to both Miss Z and Miss X. The annual review delays caused a delay in appeal rights for Miss X which she has subsequently used. I have recommended a payment to Miss X to acknowledge all of this injustice.
36. The Council has outlined steps it is taking to address gaps in its SALT provision and to minimise delays in annual reviews. Following another Ombudsman investigation the Council is also in the process of producing an action plan to ensure it follows relevant guidance and legislation in relation to children with EHC Plans. Given this, I have not made further service improvement recommendations, and we will continue to monitor the Council through our casework.

Back to top

Action

37. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to apologise to both Miss X and Miss Z and pay them a total of £2000 to acknowledge the loss of Maths tuition and SALT provision as well as the distress, uncertainty and delayed appeal rights.
38. 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.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman