Summary: The Council accepted it was at fault for failing to provide occupational therapy and speech and language therapy for Ms X’s child, C. It was also accepted it was at fault for failing to respond to Ms X’s communication and her request for a personal budget. The Council has apologised, made service improvements and offered a financial remedy.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to update her child’s (C) Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan following the annual review and failed to provide the support within it. She also complained the Council mishandled her request for a personal budget and failed to respond to her communication. The Council upheld Ms X’s complaint and offered a remedy. Ms X does not consider this resolves her complaint as C is behind his peers socially and educationally.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
3. 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.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal or a government minister or started court action about the matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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 and have not investigated

8. I cannot investigate Ms X’s complaint about the amendments the Council made to the EHC Plan when it finalised it in October 2025. This is because Ms X appealed the EHC Plan to the Tribunal, which is the correct mechanism to challenge the Council’s decision to amend the Plan, and its contents.
9. I can investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to provide provision within the EHC Plan and whether it has offered a satisfactory remedy.
10. We usually investigate the complaint for the 12-month period before a complaint is brought to us. Ms X complained to us in September 2025; we would therefore usually only consider the complaint back to September 2024. Ms X complained to the Council originally in March 2025 about matters that had arisen before this date. The Council finished investigating the complaint in July 2025, after considering it at three stages. I will therefore investigate back to March 2024, 12 months before Ms X complained to the Council.
11. In response to the Ombudsman's investigation, the Council accepted it was at fault since November 2023, the date of the EHC Plan, which is before the start point of my investigation. The Council has offered a financial remedy for the injustice it caused through its fault since this date, to July 2025. The Council's offer is consistent with what the Ombudsman would normally award in such circumstances. Since this offer goes beyond the remit of my investigation, I consider it appropriate to maintain this offer in resolution to Ms X's complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. 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

Relevant legislation

The Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan 

14. 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. 

Appeal rights

15. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s:

• description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified in their EHC Plan;
• amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan;
• decision not to amend an EHC Plan following a review or reassessment; and
• decision to cease to maintain an EHC Plan.

16. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
17. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents or young person. If the parent or young person goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the Tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded. We would not usually look at the period while any changes to the EHC Plan are finalised, so long as the council follows the statutory timescales to make those amendments.
18. We can look at matters that do not have a right of appeal, are not connected to an appeal, or are not a consequence of an appeal. For example: 

• delays in the process before an appeal right started;
• support in an EHC Plan that is not being delivered to the child or young person and we decide the cause is not connected to an appeal that has, or should have, happened.

Maintaining the EHC Plan

19. 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).
20. 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.

What happened

21. I have summarised below the key events; this is not intended to be a detailed account.
22. C attended mainstream school and had an EHC Plan dated late November 2023. The Plan says C received support from a specialist dyslexia teacher in school. It also said C needed occupational therapy (OT) and speech and language therapy (SALT). The Plan noted Ms X paid for extra tuition in English and Maths for C outside school.
23. The Council held an annual review meeting in late March 2024. The notes from the meeting said Ms X ‘was paying for additional tutoring on weekends to support [C’s] English and Maths.’ The Council decided to maintain the EHC Plan and did not amend it. It issued the decision letter in late July 2024. Ms X did not appeal this decision.
24. The Council held an annual review meeting in early July 2025. It decided to amend the EHC Plan. The Council issued its decision letter with amended EHC Plan in late July 2025 and the final EHC Plan in early October 2025. The plan included OT and SALT. Ms X appealed the plan to the tribunal, she said it is out of date and contains irrelevant information.

The complaint

25. Ms X complained to the Council in the middle of March 2025. She said the Council had not provided the provision in C’s EHC Plan and had not agreed a personal budget or responded to her communication.
26. The Council issued a stage one response in the middle of April 2025. It did not uphold Ms X’s complaint as it said an annual review was about to take place where the provision would be discussed.
27. Ms X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and asked for a stage two investigation. The Council issued a stage two response in the middle of June 2025 which upheld Ms X’s complaint. It apologised for not handling her request for a personal budget in the right way and offered Ms X a meeting to answer any questions relating to personal budgets. The Council said it will provide training to the SEN service and review processes about managing requests for personal budgets. The Council also apologised for failing to respond to communication.
28. Ms X wrote to the Council in the middle of July 2025 and said she was not satisfied with its response.
29. The Council issued a further complaint response in the middle of July 2025. It said it reviewed the EHC Plan and annual review reports following the meeting in early July and acknowledged C’s SALT provision had not been delivered. C should have received an annual block of six direct SALT sessions. The Council offered Ms X £375 to pay for SALT sessions to remedy the lack of provision. It said the School committed to providing this in the next academic year. The Council also explained it had received the documents from the annual review earlier that month and planned to issue C’s amended draft EHC Plan the first week in August 2025.
30. Ms X complained to the Ombudsman in September 2025. She said the Council failed to provide the support C needs as set out in his EHC plan. She said C had fallen behind his peers educationally and socially.
31. In conversation with Ms X, she told me she spent just over £5,000 on private tutoring in Maths and English. She said she wanted the Council to reimburse her.
32. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the school provided tuition with a specialist dyslexia teacher each week for C, as specified in his EHC Plan. The Council explained Ms X commissioned extra tuition in Maths and English, this was not in C’s plan, and the Council was not responsible for providing it.
33. The Council accepted it failed to provide SALT and OT as set out in C’s EHC Plans covering the academic year 2023 to 2024 and 2024 to 2025. It accepted C missed this provision and offered a financial remedy of £3,975.

Analysis

34. Ms X complained the Council did not provide all the support as outlined in C’s EHC Plan. In its complaint response, the Council accepted it did not provide all of C’s SALT provision. In response to my enquiries, the Council accepted this and said it also failed to provide OT support since it issued the EHC Plan in November 2023. This was fault which the Council accepted. To remedy this, the Council offered a financial payment of £3,975 which reflects OT and SALT provision C had missed. This is a satisfactory remedy for the missed provision and is in line with our guidance on remedies.
35. In conversation with Ms X, she said she had to pay for tutors privately in English and Maths as the Council did not provide this. Neither of C’s Plans say the Council should provide extra tuition in English and Maths. The Council was not under a duty to provide this, and it was not at fault. The Council was aware Ms X was paying for private tuition as it referred to this within the EHC Plans and the annual review meeting notes. It was Ms X’s decision to pay for private tutoring and not something the Council had to provide. The Council was not at fault.
36. If Ms X considers the Council should provide extra English and Maths tutoring as part of the EHC Plan, this is something she would need to ask for as part of her appeal to the Tribunal. It is not something I can investigate.
37. The Council accepted it was at fault and upheld Ms X’s complaint. The Council also accepted it did not handle Ms X’s request for a personal budget correctly and failed to respond to her communication which caused her frustration. It apologised, offered a meeting to discuss the personal budget and made service improvements. This remedied the injustice caused to Ms X and on this basis further service improvement recommendations were not needed.

Back to top

Action

38. Within four weeks of the final decision, the Council should apologise and pay Ms X £3,975 for the missed OT and SALT from November 2023 to July 2025. The Council offered this as a remedy in response to my enquiries.
39. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

40. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman