Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to ensure Ms X’s child Y received the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) in their Education, Health and Care Plan between January 2025 and February 2026 and Occupational Therapy between January 2025 and November 2025. Poor communication from the Council during that time added to Ms X’s frustration. The Council has agreed to ensure SALT provision is secured for Y, apologise to Ms X and make a payment to acknowledge her frustration and the impact on Y of the missed provision. It will also provide an update on its commissioning arrangements to ensure these can meet requirements for SALT and OT provision.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to provide the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) and Occupational Therapy (OT) identified in her child, Y’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This meant Y did not receive all the provision in their EHC Plan between January 2025 and February 2026. Ms X also complained communication with the Council was poor, causing her frustration.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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 investigated

5. Ms X made a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) in July 2025 after her complaint had completed the Council’s complaint procedure. She made a further complaint to the Council in November 2025. She received a stage two complaint response to this complaint in February 2026. As the second complaint is about the provision of SALT and the Council has had opportunity to respond, I have decided to include this complaint within this investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms 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

EHC Plan 

8. 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. 
9. 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)  
10. 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. 

Personal Budgets

11. 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.
12. A child’s parent or the young person has the right to request a Personal Budget when the council has completed an EHC needs assessment and confirmed it will prepare an EHC Plan. They may also request a Personal Budget during a statutory review of an existing EHC Plan.
13. 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.

What happened

14. Y has a diagnosis of autism and had an EHC Plan finalised in December 2024. At that time Y was in Reception at a Primary School.
15. The EHC Plan included three hours of direct SALT in the first term followed by two hours each term and one and a half hours of OT input during the first term and a further one and a half hours indirect contact.
16. In December 2024 the Council referred Y to four providers of SALT and OT.
17. In March 2025 Ms X contacted the Council to ask when SALT and OT would be arranged for Y. The Council arranged to follow up the referrals it had made.
18. In April 2025 Ms X requested a further update. The Council told Ms X it had not yet been able to arrange the provision. The Council advised the request was with the finance team and it would follow up with the providers.
19. In May 2025 Ms X made a complaint to the Council. She complained about the failure to provide the SALT and OT identified in Y's EHC Plan and the poor response from the Council.
20. The Council provided a response in May 2025 at stage one of the corporate complaints procedure. The Council apologised for the disruption the delay in arranging SALT and OT caused and said it would continue to follow up with its suppliers.
21. Ms X made a further complaint to the Council in May 2025 as she remained unhappy the provision identified in Y’s EHC Plan had not been implemented. She complained the Council had not been proactive in its efforts to arrange the provision.
22. In June 2025 the Council responded at stage two of its complaint procedure. The Council:
• Apologised for the delay in sourcing SALT and OT provision for Y.
• Said Y’s EHC co-ordinator had unexpectedly been away from work between January and March 2025. The Council said efforts were made to follow up providers in their absence, but this may not have been as frequently as expected.
• Said many SALT and OT providers have no immediate availability and response times can vary.
• Apologised the finance team did not begin to contact other providers until March 2025 but said it was often appropriate to wait for a response from the first providers, to avoid multiple providers investing time in a process that may not be required.
• Accepted the delay impacted the timeframe to deliver support to Y.
• Said it had identified providers who could offer provision in September 2025 but had also expedited further searches for other providers.
• Offered a personal budget if Ms X could independently source SALT and OT for the summer term.
• Offered a payment of £250 to recognise the delay and inconvenience in securing provision for Y.
23. The records show the Council next contacted Ms X with an update in mid June 2025.
24. Ms X said she continued to have to chase the Council and there was no SEND co-ordinator in place between September and November 2025.
25. Ms X said a SALT provider went to assess Y in October 2025.
26. Y received their OT provision in November 2025.
27. In November 2025 Ms X made a second complaint to the Council as she remained concerned SALT was not in place for Y and the communication with the Council was poor when there was a change of EHCP co-ordinator. The Council responded to this complaint at stage one of its complaint procedure in December 2024 and at stage two in February 2026.
28. In its stage two response the Council said:
• Ms X was advised in September 2025 the EHCP co-ordinator would no longer work with her and that a new co-ordinator would be appointed.
• Whilst Ms X had no allocated co-ordinator other members of staff provided oversight and it appointed a new co-ordinator in November 2025 who contacted Ms X in December.
• The ongoing delay in SALT provision was due to the lengthy commissioning process.
• It apologised Ms X had repeatedly had to chase the service for updates.
• A SALT provider had visited Y but was unable to provide any catch up sessions. The Council would continue to explore options for additional sessions.
• It continued to offer a compensation payment of £250.
29. Ms X said she had no contact from the EHC co-ordinator or a SALT provider during January 2026. She said that although Y had a SALT assessment, they had received no direct provision and had not received a SALT report.

Other investigations about this Council

30. In June 2025 we investigated a complaint about this Council and its failure to arrange OT for a child with an EHC Plan. In response to our recommendations the Council said:
• It would remind SEND staff about the Council’s duties under Section 42, that commissioning should take place as early as possible, and staff should keep looking for providers until provision was in place.
• It would remind staff that conversations about personal budgets could take place much earlier and arrangements made more quickly.
• It intended to directly employ OTs to ensure provision and offer the Council more control.

Findings

31. The Council has a non-delegable duty to ensure a child receives the provision set out in section F of their EHC Plan.
32. Y received no speech and language therapy provision between January 2025 and October 2025. They had a SALT assessment in October 2025 but there was then a further delay as the provider said it could not provide direct SALT sessions, and a new provider would be needed. As of February 2026, Y had not received their direct SALT provision. Y had no OT provision from January 2025 to November 2025. This is fault and meant Y missed out on therapy in their reception year at school.
33. The Council suggested a personal budget in its complaint response, after it had been looking for providers for nine months. It could have provided Ms X with information about personal budgets at an earlier stage. However, there is no way of knowing if this would have enabled Y to receive their provision sooner.
34. There is evidence to show that throughout the year the communication from the Council was below its expected standards. The Council did apologise to Ms X about this. However, the poor standards of communication continued after its apology. This was fault and caused frustration to Ms X.

Back to top

Agreed Action

35. Within one month of the final decision, the Council will:
• Ensure Y’s SALT provision is secured to meet their current needs.
• If not already done so, arrange the review of Y’s EHC Plan to consider the provision needed for the next year.
• Pay Ms X £500, inclusive of the £250 it has already offered, to acknowledge the impact on Y of the delays in arranging therapy and of not receiving SALT and OT as set out in their EHC Plan.
• Apologise to Ms X and pay her £200 to acknowledge the frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council’s poor communication. 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.
36. Within two months of the final decision, the Council will:
• Provide an update on its intention to directly employ Occupational Therapists and the impact this has had on securing OT provision.
• Review how SALT is commissioned and arranged when it is required as part of a final EHC plan.
37. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman