Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to provide her daughter’s speech and language therapy and occupational therapy because the Council has already provided a suitable remedy for the issue. If Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s decision to remove these therapies from her daughter’s Education, Health and Care Plan it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. The remaining issues Mrs X raises are peripheral to these main points and it is unlikely investigation would achieve anything more for her.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains about the Council’s handling of her daughter’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan reviews. She also complains the Council failed to provide her daughter’s speech and language therapy (SLT) and occupational therapy (OT) between July 2024 and July 2025, shared a copy of her daughter’s EHC Plan with someone who was no longer entitled to it, ignored her comments on the draft EHC Plans and wrongly removed SLT and OT provision from the EHC Plan in March 2025.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we are satisfied with the actions an organisation has taken or proposes to take. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(7), as amended)
3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. 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.
6. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone could take the matter to court. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to go to court. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(c), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

9. The Council accepts it failed to provide Mrs X’s daughter’s SLT and OT provision until March 2025, when both provisions were removed from her amended EHC Plan. It offered Mrs X £675 for its failures and I am satisfied this provides a suitable remedy for the injustice caused to Mrs X’s daughter. While Mrs X says the cost of providing the therapies would have been higher, this in itself does not warrant a higher payment.
10. I appreciate Mrs X believes the Council’s duty continued in spite of the changes to the EHC Plan, as she does not accept the decision to remove it was valid or properly reached, but I cannot agree with this. The Council only had a duty to provide what was set out in Section F of the amended EHC Plan and from March 2025 this did not include any SLT or OT provision. Had Mrs X disagreed with the Council’s decision to remove it from the Plan, it would have been reasonable for her to appeal. We cannot look behind the decision to say it was invalid as this was a matter for the Tribunal.
11. I note the Council’s final EHC Plan following reassessment in October 2024 was approximately one month late, but I do not consider this caused Mrs X or her daughter significant enough injustice to investigate the matter further, or warrant any further financial remedy. Had the Council completed the process sooner, the period of missed SLT and OT provision would have been less and a lower financial remedy would therefore have been appropriate. So I will not investigate this point further.
12. We also will not investigate Mrs X’s concerns about the Council ignoring her comments on the draft EHC Plans or issuing a final EHC Plan with her printed signature, as it is unlikely investigation would achieve any worthwhile outcome for her. Any disagreement with the content of the final EHC Plans was ultimately a matter for the appeals process, as set out above, and the Council has acknowledged its error in including Mrs X's signature without her consent. But I cannot say these issues affected the contents of the final EHC Plans and had Mrs X felt they did, it would have been reasonable for her to appeal.
13. Mrs X has also complained the Council wrongly shared her daughter’s EHC Plan with the former Headteacher of her school, but from the information I have seen it suggests it sent the Plan to their official email address, which was no longer active. If Mrs X wishes to pursue this issue it would be reasonable for her to raise the matter with the Information Commissioner, and if she wishes to claim damages from the Council it would be reasonable for her to make a claim against the Council at court.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because the Council has provided a suitable remedy for the impact of its failures in providing her daughter’s EHC Plan provision. If Mrs X was unhappy with the Council’s decisions concerning the amended EHC Plans it would have been reasonable for her to appeal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman