Summary: We have upheld Mr X’s complaint about his child’s missed Speech and Language Therapy provision. This is because the Council has agreed to provide a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal to escalate Mr X’s complaint to justify investigation.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council upheld his complaint about his child, Z’s missed Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) sessions but did not arrange remedial provision as it agreed. He says Z missed the SALT provision outlined in her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan as a result. Mr X also complains the Council only considered his complaint at stage one of its policy and did not allow him to escalate to stage two or stage three.

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 provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. We also do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council, and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mr X complained Z did not receive SALT provision set out in her EHC Plan during the first term after she moved school. In its complaint response, the Council accepted fault and said it would calculate the number of sessions Z missed and decide on appropriate remedial action. Mr X complains the Council has not done this.
6. If we investigated, it is likely we would find the Council at fault because it has not actioned the remedy agreed in its complaint response.
7. Mr X also complained the Council refused to escalate his complaint past stage one of its policy.
8. The Council’s complaint policy says its corporate complaints procedure is one stage. It was appropriate for the Council to consider the matter through its corporate procedure and it then appropriately signposted him to us. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal to escalate Mr X’s complaint to justify investigation.

Back to top

Agreed action

9. We invited the Council to consider remedying the injustice caused by its actions and the Council agreed to our request.
10. Within one month of our final decision, the Council will:

• Write to Mr X to apologise for its delay actioning the complaint outcome.
• Calculate the number of SALT sessions Z missed.
• Create a plan for Z to receive the remedial SALT sessions, over a timescale agreed with the provider and Mr X.
• If it is either not possible for the provider to deliver all the remedial sessions, or receiving all/some of the additional sessions is not considered in Z’s best interests, the Council will pay Mr X £65 per SALT session that is not delivered.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We have upheld Mr X’s complaint. The Council has agreed to resolve the complaint early by providing a proportionate remedy for the injustice caused. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s refusal to escalate Mr X’s complaint to justify investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman