Summary: Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide the Speech and Language Therapy outlined in her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan. Mrs X also says the Council has failed to meet the agreement set out in Y’s personal budget. Mrs X says this has left Y without provision and has caused her distress and financial implications. We have found fault in the Council’s actions for failing to review Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan after deciding Speech and Language Therapy provision was not in his best interest and for delays in amending and reimbursing items in his personal budget. The Council has agreed to write to Mrs X to issue an apology and pay her a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide the Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) outlined in her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X also says the Council has failed to meet the agreement set out in Y’s personal budget.
2. Mrs X says this has left Y without provision and has caused her distress and financial implications.

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 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)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. 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.
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 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

9. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint about provision before September 2024 as this period has been investigated under a previous Ombudsman investigation.
10. I have not investigated Mrs X’s complaint about the personal budget before April 2025 as this period has been investigated under a previous Ombudsman investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. Mrs X and the Council were invited to comment on my draft decision. I have considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

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 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)  
15. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

16. A council can amend an EHC Plan at any time. When doing so, it should follow the same process as when proposing amendments during an EHC Plan review. (The Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014, Regulation 28)

Personal Budgets

17. A Personal Budget is the amount of money the council has identified it needs to pay to secure the provision in a child or young person’s EHC Plan. One way that councils can deliver a Personal Budget is through direct payments. These are cash payments made to the child’s parent or the young person so they can commission the provision in the EHC Plan themselves.
18. The final allocation of a Personal Budget must be sufficient to secure the agreed provision specified in the EHC Plan and must be set out as part of that provision.
19. The council’s (and health commissioning body’s where relevant) duty to secure or arrange provision specified in EHC Plans is only discharged through a direct payment when the provision has been acquired for, or on behalf of, the child’s parent or the young person.
20. The Council’s Personal Budget agreement with Mrs X states following it receiving a signed agreement, payments will be made termly.

What happened

21. The Council issued a new EHC Plan for Y in January 2024.
22. A SaLT therapist completed a report in August 2024 and concluded that Y needed 8 hours of direct and 4 hours of indirect input.
23. A review of SaLT took place in November 2024 which states there were barriers for Y to access SaLT provision at the time surrounding his mental health needs.
24. A further note from March 2025 records Mrs X is still unsure about Y accessing SaLT provision due to Y’s relationship building barriers. The notes state Mrs X said she was unsure if Y’s needs were communication or emotional/mental health related and suggested speaking to Y’s Occupational Therapist (OT).
25. Mrs X contacted the Council in early March 2025 and said Y was not receiving the content of Section F of his EHC Plan.
26. The Council issued a new EHC Plan in mid-March 2025. This reflected the SaLT report issued in August 2024 and included 8 hours of direct and 4 hours of indirect support.
27. A multi-discipline meeting took place in May 2025 to discuss Y’s SaLT provision. The meeting notes record professionals felt that eight hours direct work would not be enough time to develop a relationship with Y. The notes record SaLT would work out how to move forward and confirmed this with Mrs X.
28. A further meeting took place in late May, the notes from the meeting say professionals agreed eight hours of direct contact was not the right support for Y. The notes said this should be removed from his EHC Plan. However, SaLT provision would remain in place until Autumn to allow for further review. The SaLT therapist discussed this with Mrs X and confirmed she would send her a copy of her report before she submitted it.
29. The SaLT therapist submitted her report in June 2025 which concluded that attempting to work face to face with Y regarding SaLT was not in his best interests. This was due to the number of hours not being enough for Y to develop a trusting relationship with another professional. The SaLT therapist discussed this with Mrs X and professionals. They agreed they would remove eight hours of direct SaLT from the next EHC Plan. However, the service would remain open for the time being to provide a consultative role.
30. Mrs X raised queries about this approach after the SaLT therapist issued the report and said she did not feel the EHC Plan was meeting Y’s SaLT needs.
31. Mrs X raised a complaint with the Council in late June 2025 and said a previous Ombudsman investigation had directed that a SaLT assessment should take place before the end of 24/25 school year. Mrs X said although this had gone ahead the therapist had not been able to engage with Y. Mrs X said the hours in Y’s EHC Plan would not allow him to build a relationship with the therapist and would therefore not go ahead. Mrs X said she was unhappy the Council did not consider increasing the SaLT hours.
32. The Council issued a copy of Y’s personal budget in late June 2025. Mrs X emailed the Council in early July 2025 and said she could not sign the personal budget as items were missing. Items included music lessons, outdoor play-based provision and equipment such as a punch bag, weights and lacing activities.
33. The Council took the items missed from the personal budget to panel in early July 2025 and agreed it should add these items.
34. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in mid-July 2025 and confirmed that it completed the SaLT assessment directed by the Ombudsman in the previous August. The Council said it had put SaLT provision in place, but Y had found it difficult to access it.
35. Mrs X responded to the Council and said although it completed the report Y had not been able to engage with the therapist and also said Y was not receiving any SaLT provision.
36. The Council held a further multi-disciplinary meeting in mid-July 2025. The notes from the meeting record that SaLT would work with Y’s OT and tutor to discuss next best steps to help Y communicate.
37. The Council issued a further response to the complaint in mid-August 2025 which said the SaLT report had sought the views of those that knew Y the best. The Council also said a highly qualified Speech and Language Therapist alongside other professionals reviewed the report.
38. Mrs X requested a meeting about the complaint in mid-August 2025. The Council arranged this for early September 2025.
39. In the meeting of early September 2025, the Council and Mrs X agreed SaLT provision would remain in place. This would be used to trial tools and strategies which would be reflected on in the annual review in December.
40. Mrs X emailed the Council in early September 2025 to ask for Y’s personal budget to be updated. The Council asked Mrs X to clarify what provision was in place which was not covered by the personal budget.
41. Mrs X responded to explain where the discrepancy was in relation to the personal budget and the Council responded the following day. The Council explained it had agreed the amendments to the personal budget but had not actioned them. The Council apologised and said it would make the amendments.
42. Mrs X emailed the Council in mid-September 2025 to ask it when it would make the autumn term payment for the personal budget as tuition payments were overdue. The Council confirmed payment had been made to the virtual wallet for the tuition and music provision. The Council also asked Mrs X to agree the updated personal budget.
43. The SaLT therapist met with Y’s OT and tutor to discuss support for Y’s communications in late September 2025.
44. Mrs X emailed the Council in early October 2025 to query why travel was paid in arrears and why some travel was paid up front.
45. The SaLT therapist met with Mrs X in early October 2025 and discussed the idea of a communication passport. The therapist said they would take that idea forward.
46. Mrs X raised a query with the Council in early October 2025 about an error in the personal budget with the hours and mileage for one of the provisions.
47. The SaLT therapist continued to communicate with the OT and tutor about the communication tool in late October 2025.
48. Mrs X raised a query about payment of Y’s tuition and the company which ran the virtual wallet responded to say it would pay the provision if Mrs X sent them the invoice.
49. The Council issued a first draft of the communication tool the SaLT therapist had been working on in November 2025.
50. Mrs X raised a query about the personal budget in December 2025 and said she was left without funds to pay for provision.
51. Mrs X commissioned a private SaLT report in early December 2025 which concluded Y required no less than 26 hours of direct provision.
52. The Council sent emails about the communication tool which had been developed by the SaLT therapist in December 2025 and explained why it believed this would help. Mrs X said the autumn term had passed and no trials for tools or strategies had taken place.
53. The SaLT therapist reviewed the private report sought by Mrs X and said they understood the number of hours recommended is above the National Health Service (NHS) core offer.
54. Mrs X raised a further complaint in mid-January 2026 and said she was concerned about the management of the personal budget and said the Council had failed to meet the agreement set out within it.
55. The Council emailed Mrs X in late January to respond to the complaint and said there had been delays in payments to the virtual wallet due to a request to stop payments. The Council explained it had found a discrepancy with what had been claimed for travel costs and as such it would now make payment in arrears. The Council also confirmed it had increased SaLT provision in line with the report Mrs X sought.

Analysis

Speech and Language provision

56. Following the SaLT report in August 2024 the Council made arrangements for the provision to be delivered for Y. However, it is recorded that Y could not attend the sessions due to barriers.
57. The SaLT therapists communicated with Mrs X in March 2025 and the notes record that at that time she was still unsure about Y attending the SaLT sessions due to relationship barriers.
58. A meeting took place in May 2025, and it was agreed that providing the SaLT provision specified in Y’s EHC Plan would not be in his best interests. Up until May 2025 I can see that the provision was arranged and available for Y to access if he was able. I do not find fault in the Councils actions up to this point.
59. However, after May 2025, it was decided it would not be in Y’s best interest to access the provision as it was set out in his EHC Plan. At this point the Council should have obtained further professional advice and amended the EHC Plan accordingly. I cannot see it did so.
60. I appreciate the agreement was to keep the SaLT provision open and work with professionals to provide tools to help Y communicate. However, had the provision been reassessed in May 2025 and an amended EHC Plan issued it would have allowed Mrs X the right to appeal if she was unhappy with the amendment. Not doing so is fault and has caused Mrs X uncertainty and frustration in relation to what, if any, SaLT provision would be available to Y and how this may have helped. Mrs X had no way to challenge the Council’s position on SaLT provision for Y.

Personal budget

61. Mrs X raised queries with Y’s personal budget in early July 2025. The Council reviewed these at panel and agreed the personal budget would be updated. However, when Mrs X queried this the Council said the personal budget had not been updated as it had agreed. This is fault and would have caused Mrs X frustration and uncertainty.
62. Payment for items agreed such as a punch bag, weights and lacing activities agreed in September 2025 were not made until February 2026. This is fault and would have caused Mrs X distress and inconvenience.
63. Mrs X says there have been occasions were there has been insufficient funds in the personal budget account. I have been able to see the Council has made regular payments into the account and it has always been in funds.

Back to top

Action

64. Within four weeks of a final decision, the Council should:

• Write to Mrs X to apologise for the distress and uncertainty caused by the faults identified. 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 I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mrs X £400 to recognise the uncertainty and distress caused by not reassessing the SaLT provision and amending the EHC Plan when it became apparent the provision in the plan was not in Y’s best interest.
• Pay Mrs X £250 to recognize the distress and frustration caused by errors and delays in administering Y’s personal budget.

65. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

66. I find fault causing injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman