Summary: We find the Council was at fault for failing to ensure that Mrs X’s child received the Speech and Language Therapy in their Education, Health and Care Plan. To remedy the injustice, the Council has agreed to produce an action plan to explain how it intends to deliver the missed therapy provision, review its commissioning arrangements to ensure continuity of provision in the event of similar circumstances, and make a symbolic payment to Mrs X for the distress caused.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) identified in her son’s Education and Health Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X also says the Council’s communication with her about this has been poor.
2. Mrs X says her son did not receive all the provision in his Plan from September 2025 which has impacted his development and caused her significant distress.

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 recommend 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 all comments before making a final decision.

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.
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)  

What happened

10. Mrs X has a child, Y, who has special educational needs and an EHC Plan in place. Y has been diagnosed with childhood apraxia of speech. In accordance with his Plan, Y was entitled to SALT sessions for one hour, twice a week.
11. In October 2025, the Council asked Y’s school to inform parents that SALT provision had not been in place due to unforeseen circumstances. It said the therapist would return to work after-half term and there was no suitable cover in their absence. In a further email, parents were advised the therapist would return to work on 10 November.
12. On 7 November, the Council made enquiries about commissioning an alternative therapist for Y. It informed Mrs X that it had not received any uptake for SALT provision for Y. The Council said it would continue to actively search for speech and language therapists beyond the brokerage list to identify any available options for Y.
13. The Council also told Mrs X that its aim was to minimise any further gap in provision and ensure continuity of support for Y, as quickly as possible including the missed sessions. Mrs X explained that at the time, Y had missed over a month of SALT provision which was damaging to his progress.
14. Mrs X complained to the Council in December and said it had failed to put in place the SALT provision outlined in Y’s EHC Plan. Mrs X said Y had not received any therapy since 29 September, due to his current therapist being on long term sickness. She said Y had missed 21 sessions of speech therapy which did not include three sessions he had missed during the year due to other absence from the therapist. Mrs X asked the Council to find a suitable replacement therapist and reimburse Y for all missed sessions.
15. On 17 December, the Council told Mrs X that Y’s original therapist confirmed that they would reinstate the provision for Y from January 2026. The Council explained that because the therapist had worked with Y previously, they would be able to assess his current needs and determine what, if any, additional support would be required moving forward.
16. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint in January 2026. It acknowledged it had failed to provide Y with SALT that was identified in his EHC Plan, and it had been unable to secure a replacement therapist. The Council upheld the complaint and confirmed that SALT was reinstated from 4 January.
17. Mrs X asked the Council to confirm when Y would receive the 22 sessions of SALT that he had missed, and its contingency arrangements for any future sickness absence. The Council told Mrs X that it had asked the therapist to review whether the missed sessions had had a direct impact on Y. It said, going forward it would review the provision within the EHC Plan to clearly outline the SALT provision that could be delivered by school staff and that which required direct therapist involvement.
18. Mrs X remained unsatisfied and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. Mrs X said the Council had a legal duty to provide SALT to Y, and therefore the therapist’s view on the impact of the missed sessions was irrelevant.
19. The Council responded to Mrs X’s stage two complaint in February. It said the missed sessions were due to unforeseen long-term medical leave of the therapist which was outside of its control. It said this did not mean there was an ongoing failure to deliver the provision. The Council confirmed the therapist had agreed to add additional time to Y’s session on a Monday to make up for any missed sessions.
20. Mrs X remained unsatisfied and complained to the Ombudsman.

Council’s response to our enquiries

21. The Council’s evidence shows it actively sought to commission independent providers to deliver SALT from November 2025. It identified there was a lack of capacity within independent SALT providers to take on new cases.

Analysis

22. The Council has a non-delegable duty to ensure a child receives the provision set out in section F of their EHC Plan.
23. Y’s EHC Plan included SALT sessions for one hour, twice a week. The Council failed to ensure Y received the SALT provision as set out in their Plan from October 2025 to January 2026. While there is evidence of the Council trying to source an alternative provider from November 2025 onwards, it remains that Y did not receive the provision. This was fault in the form of service failure and meant Y has gone three months without the provision they require. Mrs X has been clear in her communication with the Council about the impact the missed sessions have had on Y. This has also caused Mrs X significant distress.
24. The Council said the therapist had agreed to add additional time to Y’s session on a Monday to make up for any missed sessions. However, the Council has not been able to provide any evidence to show this has happened. This is fault and it is not clear whether Y has received the additional sessions. This has caused Mrs X uncertainty and added to her distress.
25. There is evidence to show consistent communication between the Council and Mrs X from October 2025 onwards. I would not expect to see any evidence of the therapist’s communication with Mrs X that covers the period of my investigation, due to their long-term absence. I find no fault by the Council.
26. I have made recommendations to remedy the injustice caused to Mrs X and Y.
     

Back to top

Action

27. Within one month of my final decision the Council will:

• produce an action plan which outlines how it intends to deliver the SALT provision Y has missed. This should be discussed and shared with Mrs X.
• pay Mrs X £250 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty caused by the impact of Y not receiving the provision as set out in his EHC Plan.

28. Within two months of my final decision the Council will, review its commissioning arrangements to ensure that going forward it has a contingency plan to ensure continuity of SALT provision in the event of a similar situation.
29. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

30. I find fault causing injustice to Mrs X and Y. The Council has agreed to our recommendations to remedy the injustice.
31. I have completed my investigation on this basis.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman