Summary: During another investigation, we identified the Council failed to deliver specialist therapies to a child, for two years. The evidence suggested this may have caused injustice to others. We opened this new complaint to investigate. We found the Council was at fault. It delayed carrying out specialist therapy assessments with children in its area. The Council has started work to address the issue.

The complaint

1. In another investigation we found fault with the Council for not providing occupational therapy (OT) and speech and language therapy (SALT) to a child in its area, for two years.
2. The Council said this fault was due to a national shortage of therapists.
3. We also found fault with the handover between Council teams involved in organising specialist interventions.
4. We suspected these faults may have caused and still be causing injustice to other children. Therefore, using our extended investigation power, we opened this new complaint to investigate.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. Section 26D of the Local Government Act 1974 gives us the power to investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation if we think a member of the public has or may have suffered an injustice as a result.
6. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
8. 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated the scale of the delay to provide specialist therapies to children, and what the Council has done to address it. I have investigated the procedure in place for handover between the relevant casework teams.
10. I have not investigated individual children’s cases.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Law and Guidance

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 Ombudsman’s view, based on caselaw, is that ‘service failure’ is an objective, factual question about what happened. A finding of service failure does not imply blame, intent or bad faith on the part of the council involved. There may be circumstances where we conclude service failure has occurred and caused an injustice to the complainant despite the best efforts of the council. This still amounts to fault. We may recommend a remedy for the injustice caused and/or that the council makes service improvements. (R (on the application of ER) v CLA (LGO) [2014] EWCA civ 1407) 
15. 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)  
16. The Council has the following in place:
• SEN Action Plan
• SEN Sufficiency Strategy 2023 - 2027

My Findings

Handover between casework teams

17. I asked the Council questions about how it conducts handovers between case work teams involved with organising special educational needs provision. A poor handover between teams contributed to the fault identified in the investigation that led to this complaint being launched.
18. The Council provided its internal guidance for review as part of this investigation. It shared a procedure and associated guidance for staff. The procedure includes:
• how to make a handover,
• timeframes for completing handovers,
• the points at which a handover is necessary,
• who deals with completing handovers, and
• what to do when a case is complex.
19. The procedure is dated May 2024. The procedure was developed after the issues took place in the previous complaint investigated by the Ombudsman (which led to the launch of this one).
20. I am satisfied the Council has a robust procedure in place to ensure a proper handover takes place, between casework teams.

Delay in implementing specialist therapies

21. I asked the Council questions about the delay in implementing occupational and speech and language therapies to children in its area. I asked the Council to explain how long children had been waiting and the steps taken to address the delay.
22. The Council provided data about all children waiting for specialist therapies, not just those with an EHC Plan. The Council consulted with its health partners to inform the response. It was thorough.
23. The Council said there was no significant delay to implementation of therapies, once assessment was complete.
24. For occupational therapy assessments the Council identified a significant decrease in children waiting for an assessment, from September 2024 to October 2025.
25. The data showed that in 2024 37% of children were waiting over a year for an assessment compared with 18% in 2025.
26. In September 2024, 259 children were waiting for an assessment, with 97 children having waited for one year or more, and 5 children having waited for over two years.
27. In October 2025, this had reduced to 97 children waiting for an assessment. 18 children had been waiting over a year, with only 1 waiting over two years. The child who had waited the longest had been offered an earlier intervention by the Council.
28. For speech and language therapy assessments there was also a decrease in the number of children waiting, from 2024 to 2025. However, the data showed thousands of children in the Council area had been impacted.
29. The Council explained that numbers of children waiting for an assessment had decreased within the last 18 months. In June 2024 nearly 3000 children were waiting. 2200 children were waiting in June 2025, and September 2025 saw a further decrease of around 200 children. This was positive.
30. However, the scale of the problem cannot be overlooked. The numbers, in comparison to those waiting for an OT assessment are drastically different.
31. Roughly 40% of children had been waiting between one to two years for a SALT assessment.
32. Fewer than 30 children had been waiting for over two years. All those children had an EHC Plan.
33. The data showed that most children had been waiting for longer than six months for an assessment.
34. I find fault with the Council for failing to carry out assessments for specialist therapies in a timely manner. This fault has impacted many children in the Council area over the last year. Children are having to wait an excessively long time for an assessment, in some circumstances. The evidence shows this fault is down to service failure.

Remedy

35. The Council shared with the Ombudsman the steps it has put in place to address the failures, because of responding to our formal enquiries.
36. The Council explained the process in place for dealing with the most urgent cases. Children with complex needs receive an assessment within three months.
37. Children who have been waiting the longest have been contacted and appointments have been offered to them. Where capacity is not available to conduct formal assessments, other support interventions have been offered to children to address the long waiting time.
38. 15 targeted initiatives are now being delivered, in conjunction with health partners, to address the waiting times. These initiatives include:
• more frequent assessment clinics,
• the pilot of telephone assessments to increase flexibility for service users,
• OT workshops for children and their family members (that have received positive feedback), and
• sensory focused interventions delivered to around 70 families, with 92% of families reporting improved wellbeing.
39. The numbers of children negatively impacted by these waiting times is of concern. The Ombudsman appreciated the detailed response made by the Council to address the issue.
40. While some targeted measures were already in place, the Council used the exercise of responding to our formal enquiries, to enhance its response.
41. There is an action plan in place, between the Council and its health partners, to continue to address the issues identified in this investigation. I am satisfied that actions have been started to address the issue. Therefore, I make no recommendations, as part of this investigation.
42. We will monitor the implementation of the measures described to address the fault, through our complaint handling, over the next 12-24 months.

Back to top

Decision

43. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has taken steps to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman