Summary: The Council was at fault for failing to secure the speech and language therapy in Mr X’s child, W’s, Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mr X significant frustration and meant W missed out on provision they were entitled to. The Council has since remedied W’s injustice but not Mr X’s, for which it will apologise and make a symbolic payment. The Council will also review why the fault occurred and what it needs to do to prevent similar fault in future.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council had failed to arrange the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) in his child, W’s, Education, Health and Care Plan since spring 2024. Mr X said this affected W’s development and meant they were falling behind their peers.

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 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)
3. 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)
4. 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 have and have not investigated

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in October 2025. Therefore, the period before October 2024 is late. I have decided to investigate the period between spring 2024 and October 2024 because it was several months before it became apparent W was not going to receive the SALT they were entitled to. In addition, the Council delayed responding to Mr X’s complaint, which prevented him coming to the Ombudsman sooner.
7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. For this reason, we normally end our investigations on the date the organisation issued their final response to a person’s complaint. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
8. Mr X received the Council’s final response to his complaint in October 2025, but I have chosen to investigate up to February 2026 because that is when W began receiving SALT again. It would be unreasonable to expect Mr X to make a new complaint to the Council and then the Ombudsman about the period between October 2025 and February 2026.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr 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

Education, Health and Care Plans

11. 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. These include section F, the special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
12. 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)  
13. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

14. 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 annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. Following the review meeting the council must issue its decision to maintain, amend or end the Plan. If the council decides to amend the EHC Plan, it issues a draft amended Plan for the child’s parent to comment on. The council then issues the amended Plan. If the child’s parent disagrees with the provision in the final amended Plan, they have the right to appeal to the SEND Tribunal to change its contents.

Complaints

15. The Council operates a two stage complaints procedure for most of the complaints it receives; including those about special educational needs. The complaints procedure says it will aim respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days, but this can be extended at the request of the service up to a maximum of 40 working days in exceptional circumstances. Stage two complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.

What happened

16. The Council issued W an EHC Plan in 2023. Section F noted W would be seen by a Speech and Language Therapist four times a year, for five hours. The sessions were to allow the Therapist to monitor W’s progress and advise on recommendations for W’s school to use going forwards.
17. In October 2023, W had a SALT session provided by the NHS. The next one was during in spring 2024 but did not happen, because of NHS waiting times. The NHS told Mr X to wait for it to get in contact with an update.
18. Mr X complained to the Council in June 2025, which responded at stage one of its complaints procedure in June. It said if the NHS could not provide the SALT, Mr X should contact W’s school and ask it to speak to the Council’s Special Educational Needs Assessment Service (SENA) to ask it to arrange the SALT another way.
19. Mr X asked the Council why he needed to wait six weeks for the school to reopen after the summer holidays in order to ask it to speak to the Council when the responsibility for arranging the SALT was the Council’s.
20. The Council issued a further stage one complaint response in early August. The response came from SENA, which said it did not arrange SALT. It said the school had funding from the Council to arrange the SALT. It said W had been discharged by the NHS so if Mr X felt W needed more SALT, he should ask the NHS to provide it or he could pay for it privately. The Council said it would then consider repaying Mr X for the private therapy.
21. In early August, Mr X told the Council W had not been discharged but nonetheless, W was entitled to the SALT in their EHC Plan.
22. A few weeks later, the Council issued an amended EHC Plan for W. The Plan included the same SALT provision.
23. The Council responded at stage two of its complaints procedure in late October. It said:
• It apologised for the delay responding;
• It also apologised for saying W had been discharged by the NHS and it accepted W was still on the NHS waitlist;
• It accepted the provision in W’s August 2025 EHC Plan needed to be implemented; and
• The provision was for a SALT to monitor W’s progress and make recommendations for the future. The Council said Mr X could ask SENA to arrange for a SALT assessment or he could pay for one privately. Based on that assessment, the Council would then amend W’s EHC Plan to include any recommendations the SALT made, which W’s school would then implement.
24. Mr X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman. Since December 2025, the Council has arranged for W to receive additional private SALT around every other week. The NHS began providing the SALT in W’s EHC Plan in February 2026.
25. In early June 2026, the Council held W’s annual review meeting.

Findings

Speech and Language Therapy

26. The Council owes W the duty to secure the SALT in their EHC Plan. However, as set out above, we do not expect council’s to constantly monitor whether children are receiving the provision in their EHC Plans. This means we normally do not find fault where a council had a reasonable expectation a child was receiving the provision in their Plan and were unaware provision was missing. This was the case between spring 2024, when W began missing out on the SALT, and June 2025, when the Council first heard W was not receiving the SALT. The Council was not at fault for the lost provision in that period.
27. From June 2025 until February 2026, the Council knew W was not receiving the SALT and failed to arrange it for them, which was fault.
28. Instead, the Council first referred Mr X to W’s school and SENA. This was inappropriate as the duty to arrange the SALT was the Council’s; it was not for Mr X to try and arrange the sessions.
29. The Council then wrongly suggested W had been discharged from the NHS and implied that this meant W no longer needed SALT and as such, that it was for Mr X to ask the NHS for more, or to pay for it privately. W had not been discharged but even if he had, as long as the special educational provision in W’s Plan stated that he should have four sessions per year, the Council had to ensure that provision was available to them. It was not Mr X’s responsibility to speak to the NHS or commission private sessions.
30. Finally, despite accepting it had to implement the provision in W’s EHC Plan, the Council wrongly said that, given the provision was for monitoring visits, Mr X could pay for a new SALT assessment or ask SENA to arrange one and the Council would then amend W’s EHC Plan to include any new recommendations the SALT made. The provision in the plan was for four monitoring sessions and that any recommendations made in those sessions would be implemented. There was no reason for Mr X to obtain a further assessment resulting in recommendations when the EHC Plan already included that provision and when the Council should have arranged it.
31. Overall, the Council’s failure to secure the SALT in W’s EHC Plan caused Mr X significant avoidable frustration. It also meant W missed out on the provision they were entitled to, between June 2025 and February 2026.
32. It is positive that W is now receiving the SALT in their Plan, as well as extra sessions to catch them up. Those additional sessions have been in place for around six months and so have remedied the injustice to W.
33. Mr X told the Ombudsman he is concerned the Council have not said how long the additional sessions will be in place for, as he feels they have been massively helpful for W. Given the Council is currently carrying out W’s annual review, it is open to Mr X to request an increase in the amount of SALT in W’s EHC Plan. If the Council does not agree, or decides on provision Mr X is unhappy with, he will be able to appeal the final amended Plan to the SEND Tribunal to change its contents.

Complaints handling

34. The Council’s complaints handling was also poor, which was fault. It put Mr X’s complaint through stage one twice and delayed issuing its stage two response by seven weeks. The fault caused Mr X further avoidable frustration.

Back to top

Action

35. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will take the following actions.
1. Apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused by the Council’s failure to arrange the SALT in W’s EHC Plan. 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.
2. Pay him £200 to recognise that frustration.
3. Review this case and consider why the Council repeatedly placed the onus of arranging the SALT sessions on Mr X and why it failed to step in and arrange the sessions itself, when it first became aware W was not receiving them. The Council will identify what steps it needs to take to prevent similar fault in future and tell the Ombudsman what those steps are and when it will complete them by.
36. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

37. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman