Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to deliver the provision detailed in her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X said this distressed her, Y’s needs were not assessed, and she spent time and trouble challenging the Council. There was fault. The Council did not ensure Y received the provision in the EHC Plan and its complaint handling was poor. This frustrated Mrs X and caused uncertainty. The Council should apologise and make a financial payment.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to deliver the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) assessment detailed in her child, Y’s, Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X said this distressed her, Y’s needs were not assessed, and she spent time and trouble challenging the Council.

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 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a Council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
4. 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

How I considered this complaint

5. I read Mrs X’s complaint and spoke to her about it on the phone.
6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on a draft decision. Their comments were considered before making this final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Background information

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 EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section B: Special educational needs.  
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 

10. 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)  

What happened

11. This is a summary of events, outlining key facts and does not cover everything that has occurred in this case.
12. Y has an EHC Plan. The Council issued a final EHC Plan in August 2023. In section F of the plan, it says Y should have an “annual review assessment with a Speech and Language Therapist to include informal and formal assessment as appropriate, writing of report and programme for school staff/parents to follow. 60 minutes for assessment and information gathering, 60 minutes for report writing.”
13. The Council arranged a SALT assessment in May 2024.
14. Mrs X complained to the Council in July 2025. She complained the Council failed to secure the SALT assessment for Y in the 2024-25 academic year.
15. The Council issued its complaint response at the end of July 2025. The response said it did not know the NHS SALT discharged Y.
16. Mrs X asked the Council to escalate her complaint to stage two in August 2025. She repeated the Council failed to secure the assessment detailed in Y’s EHC Plan.
17. The Council issued its stage two complaint response in September 2025. The Council accepted it had a duty to secure the provision detailed in section F, the SALT assessment. The response upheld the complaint. It accepted it had not secured the assessment but said there was no injustice from this fault. The Council said it would arrange a SALT assessment.
18. Mrs X was not satisfied with the Council’s response and has asked the Ombudsman to investigate. Mrs X would like the Council to arrange the SALT assessment, apologise and make a financial payment.
19. Mrs X decided to arrange the SALT assessment. She evidenced a receipt for the SALT assessment totalling £120. Mrs X received the assessment later in September 2025.
20. In response to my enquiries the Council accepted it had a duty to secure the SALT assessment, but it did not. The Council stated it would not reimburse Mrs X the cost of the assessment as she chose to arrange the assessment.

My findings

EHC Plan provision

21. When the Council issued Y’s EHC Plan in August 2023, it had a duty to secure the special educational provision in the plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Ombudsman takes the view that councils must abide by the statutory and legislative requirements under the SEN legislation and guidance.
22. The Council accepted it did not secure the assessment detailed in the EHC Plan. The Council’s failure to ensure Y received the provision in the plan is fault. 
23. The Council said this fault did not cause Mrs X or Y an injustice. The assessment is in the EHC Plan to ensure support is up to date and in line with Y’s needs. Not having an up-to-date assessment caused uncertainty as the family did not know if Y’s support was appropriate. The Council fault caused an injustice to the family.
24. Having to arrange the assessment, frustrated Mrs X. In response to my enquiries, the Council said it would not repay Mrs X for the cost of the SALT assessment. It said it was arranging an assessment, and the Council had not agreed for Mrs X to arrange a separate assessment. I have seen no evidence the Council arranged an assessment during the academic year this matter refers to, or after the complaint response where it agreed to. Mrs X arranged the SALT assessment because the Council did not, as it was required to do. It is reasonable for the Council to pay back the cost of this.

Complaint handling

25. Mrs X’s complaint was about the Council not providing the assessment in the EHC Plan. The Council stage one response focuses on the NHS discharging Y. This is not relevant. The assessment is in section F of the EHC Plan, so the Council had a duty to secure the provision. The Council’s stage one response does not fully consider the complaint. This is fault, frustrating Mrs X.

Back to top

Action

26. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused to Mrs X by the fault I have identified, the Council has agreed to take the following action within 4 weeks of this final decision:
• Apologise to Mrs X for not ensuring Y received the provision in the EHC Plan and for not fully considering the complaint. 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.
• Reimburse Mrs X the £120 she paid for the SALT assessment.
• Pay Mrs X £150 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused by the Council not ensuring Y received the provision in the EHC Plan.
27. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

28. I have completed my investigation. I have found fault by the Council, which caused injustice to Mrs X.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman