Summary: The Council failed to provide Mrs X’s child Y with Speech and Language Therapy provision in line with their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between September 2024 and October 2025. It also delayed reviewing and amending Y’s Plan prior to post 16 education by six months. The Council agreed to apologise and make a payment to recognise the injustice caused to Y and Mrs X. It will also carry out service improvements via an organisational action plan.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained about the Council’s handling of her child, Y’s education during the 2024/25 academic year. She complained:
• it failed to ensure Y received Speech and Language therapy (SALT) provision in line with Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan and this continued into the 2025/26 academic year.
• failed to hold Y’s post 16 transition annual review which meant it delayed issuing their post 16 EHC Plan.
2. Miss X said the lack of SALT impacted on Y’s education and progression. The delayed annual review meant Y did not begin post 16 education until October 2025.

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

How I considered this complaint

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 my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

EHC Plans

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.
9. 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).

EOTAS (Education other than at School)

10. EOTAS is education for children and young people with EHC Plans who cannot attend any educational setting due to their special educational needs. Instead they receive their education and specialist provision either at home or within another external setting that is not a registered educational setting.

Reviewing EHC Plans

11. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews.
12. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.
13. The council must review and amend an EHC Plan in enough time before a child or young person moves between key phases of education. This allows planning for and, where necessary, commissioning of support and provision at the new institution.
14. For young people moving from secondary school to a post 16 institution or apprenticeship, the council must review and amend the EHC Plan – including specifying the post 16 provision and naming the institution – by 31 March in the calendar year of the transfer.

What happened

15. Mrs X has a child, Y who in the 2024/25 academic year was of secondary school age. Y was due to begin post 16 education from September 2025.
16. Y has special educational needs and has had an EHC Plan for a number of years. The Council issued Y’s amended EHC Plan in June 2024. The Plan stated Y’s specialist provision and education would be delivered via an EOTAS package.
17. Y’s EHC Plan outlined the specialist provision they were entitled to which included Speech and Language Therapy (SALT). The Plan said
• Y would be supported to learn about their own and others’ body language and other non-verbal communication through a programme devised by the Speech and Language Therapist.
• Y would need to be supported by their tutor and mentor to know what appropriate social communication is and what is not in any spontaneous communications.
• Speaking and Listening activities with a tutor or mentor based on the Speech and Language Therapist programme.
18. The Council did not commission the SALT provision to be in place from September 2024 onwards. The Council also failed to hold Y’s post 16 phase transfer annual review or issue their post 16 EHC Plan by 31 March.
19. Mrs X complained to the Council in June 2025 about the failure to deliver SALT provision and about not meeting Y’s phase transfer deadline which meant they had no named post 16 placement for September. She also complained that Y’s food technology course was disrupted after a change in curriculum halfway through the year.
20. The Council provided a stage one response in July and a stage two response in September 2025. It found
• Y’s annual review took place in June 2025 and it had now issued an amended EHC Plan which named a general further education college.
• No evidence of SALT being delivered. The Council said it failed to chase up consultations it had sent out.
• Y’s food technology provider ceased and the new provider did not support external candidates. The Council said a new provider and course albeit with a different syllabus was found for Y. It said the change in syllabus did not affect Y’s final grade.
• It was taking action to improve commissioning of SALT providers and was expanding its range of providers. It said it had increased staff to enable timely annual reviews and stronger monitoring processes.
21. The Council offered Mrs X £1950 to recognise the loss of SALT and an additional £300 for the distress caused.
22. Miss X rejected the Council’s offer and complained to us.
23. Miss X said the SALT in Y’s EHC Plan was in place for their personal development and to help them engage in both social and educational activities. She said the lack of SALT during the 2024/25 academic year affected Y’s educational progress and their confidence. Miss X said the delayed post 16 annual review meant Y did not begin college until October 2025, missing the first four weeks of the term.
24. Following our initial enquiries the Council offered an increased remedy of £3150 to include Y’s missing SALT and mentoring provision during the first half term of the 2025/26 academic year.

My findings

SALT provision

25. The Council has accepted the Y did not have any SALT provision in line with their EHC Plan for all of the 2024/25 academic year. It was also not in place for the first half term of the 2025/26 academic year. So, between September 2024 and October 2025 Y received no SALT. That was fault. While Y’s other EOTAS provision appeared to be in place the lack of SALT alongside impacted on Y’s progression and development and ability to fully engage. It particularly affected their social development. We welcome the Council’s acceptance of fault and the offer of a remedy. However, I have made a recommendation below which is in line with our guidance to remedy the injustice caused.

Annual review delays

26. Y was due to begin post 16 education from September 2025 which meant the Council should have carried out an annual review early enough to issue Y’s amended post 16 EHC Plan by the 31 March deadline. The Council did not carry out the annual review until June 2025 and did not issue Y’s amended post 16 Plan until late September 2025, six months after the statutory deadline. This was fault. Ultimately it meant Y began post 16 education a month late and missed out on education for the first four weeks of the term. The Council has already offered Mrs X £300 to recognise the distress this caused which is in line with our guidance.

Food technology course

27. Part of Mrs X’s complaint was about Y’s food technology course syllabus changing due to the previous provider not being able to support Y as they were classed as external. Although this caused Mrs X frustration, it is something that was largely outside of the Council’s control and therefore not fault. In any case, there is no evidence it caused Y a significant injustice.

Back to top

Action

28. Within one month of the final decision the Council agreed to:
1. Apologise to Mrs X and pay her a total of £4000 to recognise the injustice caused to both her and Y by its failure to provide SALT provision between September 2024 and October 2025, the impact on Y’s education caused by the delayed post 16 phase transition review and the distress and frustration caused to Mrs X. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Develop and provide an organisational action plan which addresses the following issues:
1. A review of its Speech and Language therapist (SALT) commissioning arrangements to ensure it can provide SALT provision without delay for children who require it has part of their Education, Health and Care Plan.
2. Ensure the Council has sufficient processes in place to keep oversight of children with Education, Health and Care Plans approaching post 16 education. This is to make sure annual reviews are carried out in a timely manner so the Council can meet statutory timescales in issuing amended Plans by the 31 March deadline.
3. The Council should complete the action plan within three months of the final decision.
29. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I found fault causing injustice and the Council agreed to my recommendations to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman