Summary: Miss B complained the Council failed to update her son’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in line with a Tribunal decision within statutory timescales. She also complained it failed to secure specialist provision and failed to offer a suitable remedy. The Council was at fault. It failed to secure speech and language therapy (SaLT) and its communication was poor. Miss B suffered distress and frustration and C missed provision. The Council has agreed to make symbolic payments and send us evidence of progress it has made on its Improvement Plan.

The complaint

1. Miss B complains the Council has failed to:
• Update her son’s, who I will refer to as C, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in line with the Tribunal order within the statutory timescale.
• Secure the speech and language therapy (SaLT) provision outlined in section F of C’s EHC Plan.
• Offer a suitable remedy.
2. As a result of the Council’s actions, Miss B says C has missed provision which has negatively impacted his communication and self-esteem. She says she has also suffered distress and frustration.
3. Miss B would like the Council to offer an appropriate financial remedy to acknowledge the provision C has missed.

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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
6. 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.
7. 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)
8. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.

Back to top

What I have investigated

9. I have investigated matters in this case from January 2025 when the SEND Tribunal issued its decision order, to July 2025, when the Council issued its stage two complaint response and Miss B brought her complaint to us. I reference matters outside of these dates for context.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I read Miss B’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
11. I considered evidence provided by Miss B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Miss B 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 Plan 

13. 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. 
14. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 
• Section B: 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 educational placement 

Maintaining the EHC Plan

15. 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

16. This is a summary of events outlining key facts and it does not include everything that has happened in this case.
17. Miss B appealed the content of C’s EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal. The SEND Tribunal issued its decision in January 2025, which ordered the Council to amend sections B, F, and I of the EHC Plan. The Council issued the amended EHC Plan in mid-February 2025. It issued a further amended EHC Plan at the end of March 2025.
18. Miss B complained to the Council that it had not yet put SaLT provision in place for C as outlined in his EHC Plan, and the Council’s communication with her had been poor. The Council responded to Miss B’s complaint in April 2025. It apologised for the communication difficulties and acknowledged it had failed to secure the SaLT provision for C. The Council assured Miss B it had approached several of its registered SaLT providers with the aim of urgently securing the provision. It also told Miss B she would have a direct point of contact.
19. Miss B raised a stage two complaint with the Council the following month about its continued failure to secure and deliver the SaLT provision and its lack of communication. The Council responded to Miss B. It told her:
• It accepts it had not secured a provider to deliver the SaLT provision.
• It had identified several providers with availability to deliver provision from September 2025.
• It apologises for not updating Miss B as it had previously agreed.
• It recognises the delay in arranging the provision constitutes a section 42 failure and that the difficulty in securing providers is a county-wide issue due to SaLT capacity.
• It offers £500 to recognise the failures. £400 of this was to acknowledge missed provision, £100 was for time, trouble and distress.
20. The Council sent Miss B a further stage two response. It told her it would like to offer an increased payment of £800 for the missed SaLT provision. It also offered an additional £100 for the time and trouble Miss B had spent raising complaints. The Council told Miss B it had a SaLT provider available to offer provision to C from September 2025.
21. The SaLT provision began in mid-January 2026.

Back to top

Analysis

22. Following the SEND Tribunal’s decision, the statutory timescale for the Council to issue the amended EHC Plan was five weeks. The Council issued an amended EHC Plan within this timeframe. However, Miss B says the EHC Plan did not include the SaLT recommendations in line with the Tribunal’s orders, until it issued a further amended EHC Plan the following month. The Tribunal’s decision recommended the Council undertake a SaLT assessment for C, and that the Council should incorporate the outcome and recommendations of the assessment as appropriate during the annual review process. So, I have not found the Council was at fault here. The Council satisfied compliance with the Tribunal’s order when it issued the initial amended EHC Plan.
23. However, the Council has accepted it failed to secure SaLT provision for C. As outlined in paragraph 15, the Council has a duty to make sure C receives the special educational provision set out in section F of his EHC Plan. So, the failure to do so was fault. The Council began arranging a SaLT provider on 30 April 2025, but this provision should have started immediately when the EHC Plan which detailed this provision was issued, which was on 31 March 2025. The Council has told me it recognises its delays in sourcing a provider contributed to C missing provision.
24. There is a difference of opinion between Miss B and the Council about the SaLT provision C has missed, specifically regarding a language and communication programme. Section F of C’s EHC Plan details what SaLT provision should be delivered to him across three terms. The section for term one outlines the language and communication programme to be delivered for a minimum of 15 minutes three times a week. Miss B’s view is that this is also to be delivered for terms two and three. The Council disagrees and says the EHC Plan only specifies the programme to be delivered in term one. I have seen the EHC Plan, and it does not specify the language and communication programme should be delivered for a minimum of 15 minutes three times a week for terms two and three as it does for term one. However, for terms two and three, the EHC Plan refers to updating a programme which would be delivered in these terms. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied it is more likely than not, that the programme this section references, is the same programme mentioned in the section outlining the SaLT provision for term one. The EHC Plan is not particularly clear, and there is an element of uncertainty due to the way it has been written.
25. The Council’s failure to secure the SaLT provision caused an injustice to C. He missed this provision from March 2025 when the EHC Plan outlining this provision was issued, until the provision started in mid-January 2026. This missed provision would have also impacted C’s ability to engage effectively with other provisions and learning.
26. We have published guidance to explain how we calculate remedies for people who have suffered injustice because of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred.
27. Sometimes we will recommend a financial payment to the person who brought their complaint to us. This might be to reimburse a person who has suffered a quantifiable financial loss, or it might be more of a symbolic payment which serves as an acknowledgement of the distress or difficulties they have been put through. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider.
28. In response to my enquiries, the Council has offered an updated financial remedy of £1,300 to acknowledge the missed provision. This is in line with our guidance, and given the circumstances of this case, it is appropriate to remedy the combination of missed provision, and the element of uncertainty about the level of provision missed. The Council has also offered £100 to acknowledge the injustice caused to Miss B by the Council’s poor communication and delays in providing her with updates. The Council repeatedly failed to provide Miss B with updates and respond to her communications, despite assurances its communication would improve. Given this, £100 is not appropriate to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused by this. I have made a recommendation to reflect this.
29. The Council also told me staff shortages and capacity issues with SaLT providers contributed to the delay in the SaLT provision starting. The Council has a SEND Improvement Plan which outlines areas for improvement and actions it will take to meet these goals. The identified fault in this case aligns with area four of the Improvement Plan, which identifies the need to address gaps and delays in service provision, including SaLT. I have therefore not made any service improvement recommendations, as the Council is already taking action to improve its services. However, I welcome an update on the Council’s progress on this part of the Improvement Plan. I also have not recommended the Council apologise to Miss B, as it has already done so in its complaint responses, which is appropriate.

Back to top

Action

30. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Miss B and C by the fault I have identified, the Council will take the following actions within four weeks of my final decision:
• Pay Miss B the £1,300 it has offered to acknowledge the missed provision and uncertainty about the level of missed provision, caused by the identified fault.
• Pay Miss B £300 to acknowledge the distress and frustration caused by the Council’s poor communication.
31. Within three months, the Council will also send us evidence of the progress it has made on achieving the actions in area four of its SEND Improvement Plan.
32. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

33. I uphold Miss B’s complaint and find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman