Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to provide the Speech and Language Therapy (SaLT) provision in his child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following a Tribunal order. The Council was a fault for a delay in issuing Y’s amended plan and securing the required SaLT. The Council will apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused to Mr X and Y. It will also make changes to its service to prevent the same fault from happening to others.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council has failed to deliver SaLT for his child Y in line with their EHC Plan. He said the Council is using a Multi Therapy Assistant (MTA) which does not align with the First-tier Tribunals (SEND) decision.
2. He says this has caused Y to miss out on necessary provision to meet their needs and caused frustration and uncertainty.

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. 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)
5. 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

6. I have investigated Mr X’s complaint from March 2025 the date of the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) Order to August 2025 when Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman.
7. I have not investigated any matters after August 2025, these are new matters and would be subject to a new complaint to the Council in the first instance.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr 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

Relevant law and guidance

Special educational provision

10. A child or young person with Special Educational Needs (SEN) 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.
11. 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 (Children and Families Act 2014, section 42).

SEND tribunal

The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs and EHC Plans. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.

12. Parents and young people can appeal the contents of an EHC Plan to the Tribunal. Where a council has been ordered by the Tribunal to amend the special educational provision specified in the EHC plan, the council must issue the amended EHC plan within five weeks of the order being made. (Regulation 44 of the Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014)
13. Case law has established councils have a legal duty to secure the special educational provision in an EHC Plan by the time the amended final EHC Plan is issued following an appeal to the Tribunal. (BA, R (on the application of) v Nottinghamshire County Council [2021] EWHC 1348 (Admin)).

What happened

14. In mid- March 2025 the Tribunal ordered the Council to amend Mr X’s child Y’s EHC Plan to include 45 minutes of direct SaLT intervention per week. The Plan said this must be delivered by a Speech and Language Therapist (SLT) or assistant that has been trained in the approach and directly supported by a SLT.
15. Y’s EHC Plan was amended to include the weekly 45 minutes of SaLT and issued at the end of March 2025.
16. Y was added to the SLT caseload in mid-June 2025 with their first session delivered mid-July 2025.
17. Y received one ‘catch up’ session of SaLT during the holidays in August 2025.
18. In July 2025 Mr X complained to the Council. He said the Council were failing to comply with the Tribunal’s Order to deliver 45 minutes of direct weekly SaLT to Y and were using a Multi Therapy Assistant (MTA) instead of the Tribunal directed qualified SLT or SLT assistant.
19. In its response the Council said it was satisfied the use of an MTA was suitable and met the requirements of the Tribunal’s Order. It said it was aware the MTA was off sick but that it was working with the National Health Service (NHS) to ensure continuity of provision.

Analysis

20. The Tribunal issued an order to amend the EHC Plan in March 2025, with a five-week deadline for the Council to comply. Case law has found the five-week deadline allows councils to start securing the bulk of the special educational provision in the EHC Plan, so that it can be in place by the time the amended final EHC Plan is issued.
21. The Council amended and issued Y’s EHC Plan within the statutory five-week deadline, it was not at fault at this point.
22. The Council should have secured the provision in Y’s plan by March 2025 when it issued Y’s final EHC Plan. It did not do so until mid-July 2025 which was fault causing Y to miss out on SaLT provision, as directed by their EHC Plan for one term. This fault also caused avoidable frustration and uncertainty to Mr X.
23. The Council made appropriate checks that the use of a suitably qualified MTA met the requirements of the Tribunal Order when Mr X raised his concerns. It clearly explained its reasons to Mr X. There is no fault in how it made its decision.

Back to top

Action

24. Within one month of our final decision, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mr X and Y for the injustice caused to them by the failings identified during this investigation. 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.
2. pay Mr X £900, on behalf of Y, to recognise the loss of Speech and Language Therapy provision for one term from March 2025 to July 2025.
25. Within three months of our final decision, the Council will through training or a staff briefing, remind relevant Council staff of the legal duty to:
• ensure the child or young person’s special educational provision in their EHC Plan is in place within five weeks of the Tribunal’s order to amend the EHC Plan.
26. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman