Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to ensure Ms X’s children Y and Z received the speech and language therapy set out in their Education, Health and Care Plan. The Council has agreed to apologise and make a payment to acknowledge the frustration and the potential impact of the missed provision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to ensure her children, Y and Z, received the speech and language therapy (SALT) in their Education, Health and Care Plan. Ms X also said the Council delayed dealing with her complaint.
2. As a result of the Council’s faults, Ms X said her children received intermittent speech and language support over a two-year period and she has also been caused distress and frustration.

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 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 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
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(1), as amended)
7. 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

8. We expect complainants to come to us within 12 months of being aware they have cause for complaint. Ms X complained to us in June 2025. However, I am satisfied there are good reasons Ms X did not come to us sooner. Ms X first complained to the Council in February 2024 about Y’s missed SALT provision. She believed the situation was resolved until the provision stopped and so she complained again in March 2025. The Council then considered her complaint at the next stage of its complaints’ procedure in May 2025 and Ms X came to us shortly afterwards. I have considered what happened since the outcome of Ms X’s appeal to Tribunal in late September 2023.
9. Ms X formally complained to the Council about Y’s and not Z’s missed provision. Although she did not pursue a formal complaint about Z’s missed provision through the Council, it has accepted that Z was likely to have been equally affected and so I have considered the impact on both children in this decision statement.

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. I gave Ms X and the Council an opportunity to comment on a draft of this decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and guidance

12. A young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This sets out their needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
13. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include:
• Section B: The child or young person’s 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 school. 
14. We cannot direct changes to the sections about education or name a different educational setting. Only the SEND Tribunal can do that.
15. Councils are responsible for making sure that arrangements specified in the EHC Plan are put in place. We can look at complaints about this, such as where support set out in the EHC Plan has not been provided, or where there have been delays in the process.

What happened

16. Ms X’s children, Y and Z, have special educational needs and require support with their speech and language.
17. They attended a mainstream primary school. Y’s EHC Plan included 18 hours of SALT per year with 10 minutes of daily support with speech from teaching staff as guided by the SALT.
18. Ms X appealed to the Tribunal about the content of Y’s Plan and the school named in the Plan. In late September 2023 the Tribunal issued its decision and named a school with an additionally resourced provision (ARP), School B. Additionally resourced provisions are specialised educational settings within mainstream schools designed to support children with special educational needs. The SALT provision in the Plan remained unchanged.
19. Y was not at that time attending school. The NHS therapy centre which provided Y’s SALT advised the Council that it was unable to deliver the SALT provision to Y because of this. It then discharged Y as they were moving to a school with an ARP (School B) which, at that time, was expected to employ its own therapists. Y started at School B in early 2024.
20. In February 2024 a new contract between the Council and NHS came into force which meant the NHS therapy team would provide SALT to all schools including those with ARPs. The Council told schools, including School B, to carry on using its usual funding methods to deliver SALT until its new contract was rolled out over the year. However, School B told the Council it did not currently have a speech and language therapist in post. The Council advised it to speak with the NHS therapy centre to arrange provision which School B said it had tried to do but it had not been successful.
21. Ms X complained to the Council in early February 2024 that Y was not receiving the SALT provision in their EHC Plan. The Council responded in late March. It apologised that the response was late. It upheld her complaint and explained about the change in SALT provision. It acknowledged that it was responsible for ensuring Y received the provision in their Plan and said it would look to commission SALT to support Y in the meantime.
22. Ms X contacted the Council again at the end of March to ask when the provision would start. The Council responded in mid April. It advised it had now found a SALT who would be in touch to arrange a start date. The Council commissioned a SALT who delivered two sessions of support before the end of the school term which focused on assessing Y’s needs.
23. At Y’s annual review in late 2024 Ms X expressed her concerns that Y had not received his therapy or daily support as set out in his EHC Plan.
24. From October 2024 the NHS therapy team took over Y’s SALT at School B. The Council’s records showed it delivered regular direct and indirect SALT provision to support Y between October 2024 and late January 2025
25. Between late January 2025 and June 2025, the on-site therapy was paused for staffing and operational reasons.
26. In early March 2025 Ms X complained to the Council that she had found out Y was not receiving their SALT provision. The Council responded in late May 2025 at stage two of its complaints’ procedure. It apologised for the lapse in communication which meant she was not informed the previous therapist had left. It said a new therapist would be joining School B after the half term. It explained it would not be clinically appropriate for the SALT to focus on making up missed time. It said the SALT would provide consistent, targeted support responsive to Y’s current needs.
27. The SALT started again in June 2025. The records show Y received their 18 hours of provision (including 9 hours 10 minutes of direct provision) in the 2024/25 academic year.
28. Following Y’s annual review in late 2025, the Council amended Y’s EHC Plan and agreed to increase Y’s SALT provision to 37 hours per year (19 hours of direct provision and 18 hours of indirect provision).

My findings

29. Y was not initially attending school; School B did not have a SALT in post when Y started at the school and the change in contractual arrangements all added to the Council’s difficulties in providing SALT support to Y. However, the duty to ensure a child receives the education set out in section F of their EHC Plan is non-delegable. The Council was at fault as it failed to ensure Y received the SALT provision set out in the EHC Plan. This meant Y received very little SALT provision in the 2023/24 school year and this caused Ms X significant frustration.
30. The Council also delayed responding to Ms X’s complaint which added to her frustration.
31. The records show Y received the total number of hours of SALT support set out in their Plan in the 2024/25 school year. But given there was no SALT in place between January and June 2025 it is likely they missed out on some of the support which should have been provided by teaching staff, as guided by the SALT.
32. I cannot now establish exactly what impact the missed provision had on Y though Y is now receiving regular provision and Y’s recently amended EHC plan includes increased SALT. This should ensure Y’s current needs are appropriately met.
33. Ms X says her other child Z was similarly affected by the faults we identified and missed out on the same amount of SALT. She says she did not submit a second complaint to the Council to save time and effort. The Council has accepted Z was likely to have been equally affected and has agreed to remedy the injustice caused to both children.

Back to top

Agreed Action

34. Within one month of the final decision the Council has agreed to apologise to Ms X and her children and pay Ms X £1000 to acknowledge the frustration and potential impact caused by the missed provision. 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.
35. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

36. The Council was at fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman