Summary: Miss Y complains the Council failed to arrange the delivery of the Occupational Therapy set out in her child’s Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has already accepted fault and offered a remedy which we consider proportionate to the injustice caused. We do not recommend any additional remedial action.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains her child, who I will call D, missed 13 weeks of OT provision as set out in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan.
2. Miss Y says the missed therapy caused D extreme distress and dysregulation impacting on their education, daily activities and overall wellbeing.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B)).
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).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Miss Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
7. 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

What I found

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. Councils have 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.
9. D has an EHC plan which the Council issued in May 2024. This says D should receive occupational therapy (OT), including annual sessions delivered by a qualified therapist.
10. Miss Y says the Council did not properly arrange this provision. A previous complaint about missed OT between April and July 2024 resulted in the Council offering a financial remedy and agreeing to arrange catch‑up provision.
11. In March 2025, an annual review considered increasing D’s OT provision. The Council did not initially agree to the increase. However, in July 2025, the Council’s panel agreed that D should receive weekly OT.
12. The OT provider could not start delivering this provision because it had not received the necessary documentation. Miss Y and the provider repeatedly contacted the Council about this between July and August 2025. It was sent to the provider on 28 August 2025 but had to be returned because information was missing. A corrected version was not sent back to the provider until 15 September 2025.
13. Because of these delays, OT provision was not in place. At the time of complaining, Miss Y said D last received OT in May 2025 and missed several sessions thereafter.
14. Miss Y complained to the Council in August 2025. The Council initially said it could not investigate because of an ongoing SEND Tribunal appeal. This approach was not in accordance with the adopted ‘Complaint Handling Code’, which expects councils to accept and progress complaints appropriately.
15. After accepting its initial refusal to investigate Miss Y’s complaint was incorrect, the Council considered the complaint at stage 2 in September 2025. It acknowledged delays in arranging the OT provision, apologised, and recommended the service arrange catch-up provision. It also offered Miss Y £150 to recognise the frustration and uncertainty caused.
16. Miss Y remained dissatisfied. She said the Council had not put in place a plan to deliver the outstanding OT sessions and that D continued to miss provision.
17. Since complaining to us, Miss Y spoke with a therapist who advised that D had missed too much provision and it was not possible for D to catch up alongside their other provision.
18. Following confirmation of this, Miss Y informed us the Council made a payment of £1445 to her. The Council said this is the equivalent cost of the OT sessions which D missed.

Findings

19. The Council agreed to make a payment based on the estimated cost of the missed OT sessions. I have considered whether this is a proportionate remedy.
20. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance does not usually calculate financial remedies by reference to the cost of provision that should have been delivered. Instead, we usually recommend a symbolic payment to acknowledge the loss of provision and its impact, taking into account the nature, severity and duration of the missed support. Payments equivalent to the cost of provision are typically only appropriate where a complainant has incurred a direct financial loss, such as funding alternative provision themselves.
21. As Miss Y did not incur such costs, our usual approach would be to assess an appropriate financial remedy based on the injustice caused rather than the cost of the missed sessions. I am satisfied the payment Miss Y has already received is an appropriate payment for the injustice caused and I do not recommend any further.
22. Miss Y has also raised concerns about continuing difficulties in arranging OT. These matters post-date the period we have investigated, which ends in October 2025, and we have therefore made no formal findings on them. However, given the Council’s ongoing duty to secure the provision set out in D’s EHC plan, we would expect the Council to contact Miss Y to understand and address any current difficulties with D’s OT provision. This may help resolve matters promptly and avoid the need for a further complaint.

Back to top

Decision

23. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has already provided an appropriate remedy for, and we do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman