Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to provide Speech and Language Therapy to Mrs X’s child. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault and it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability)

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complained about the Council’s decision to stop providing her child (Y) with Speech and Language Therapy (SALT). Mrs X wants the Council to reinstate the SALT, provide extra sessions to make up for those missed, and to pay compensation.

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 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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. 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)
4. 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.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. In response to Mrs X’s complaint the Council said that in 2022 it had refused her request it issue Y with an EHC Plan. But it did agree to carry out a SALT assessment and make provision “as long as it can be delivered in a home education setting / context”. The Council said paperwork showed this agreement was initially for one year only. In May 2024, this agreement had come to the attention of the relevant Head of Service, and they decided the SALT should stop. The Council accepted it had not shared this decision and its rationale with Mrs X. It therefore partially upheld her stage 1 complaint. The Council said that Y did not have an EHC Plan and was Electively Home Educated. This meant Mrs X had responsibility for Y’s education and the Council would not reinstate the SALT.
8. At stage 2 of the complaints process the Council accepted there was no evidence the original decision to provide SALT for only one year had been explained – but said it had been recorded. The Council posed the question whether the lack of explanation meant the SALT should be provided indefinitely. The Council said that in line with children with an EHC Plan the provision should be regularly reviewed. The Head of Service had effectively done this when they decided the SALT should stop. The Council’s decision not to provide SALT had been formalised in its recent decision not to issue Y with an EHC Plan. This was a decision Mrs X could appeal to the Tribunal.
9. We will not start an investigation into Mrs X’s complaint.
10. The Council does not have to provide Y with SALT as they do not have an EHC Plan containing SALT. Y is Electively Home Educated. The SEN Code of Practice does allow councils to fund home-educated children. But the Council has decided it is no longer appropriate to provide SALT. That is a decision for the Council – not the Ombudsman.
11. The Council has accepted it did not tell Mrs X the SALT it did provide would only initially be for one year – and Mrs X disputes this was ever the arrangement. The Council has also accepted it did not tell Mrs X the SALT would stop. The Council was therefore clearly at fault in its communication with Mrs X.
12. An investigation into Mrs X’s complaint is not appropriate though. The lack of communication about the decision to end the SALT does not alone represent an injustice significant enough to warrant an investigation. There is also not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision to no longer provide SALT. This is because there is no EHC Plan requiring the Council to provide SALT, and it has decided there are no other reasons for it to continue. That is a decision of professional judgment and without evidence of fault in how it was reached is not one we can question. Consideration of what was originally decided would not change this position.
13. If Mrs X thinks her child requires SALT and the Council should provide it, then the mechanism to achieve this is an EHC Plan. The Council refused Mrs X’s recent request for an EHC Plan, but parents who want to challenge such decisions have a right of appeal to the Tribunal. It is the mechanism set up by Parliament for parents to challenge such decisions. We generally expect people to use that right unless it was unreasonable for them to do so. In this case the Tribunal could give Mrs X the outcome she wants and so it was reasonable for her to use her right of appeal. We will not therefore investigate this part of Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

14. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault to warrant the Ombudsman investigating and it was reasonable for Mrs X to appeal the Council’s recent decision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman