Summary: We cannot investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to include speech and language therapy provision in a child’s Education, Health and Care plan. This is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal, and the issues raised are not separable from that appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council dealt with a related matter.

The complaint

1. Mr X’s child, Z, has an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan).
2. Mr X complains the Council failed to include speech and language therapy (SALT) in Z’s final EHC Plan, despite agreeing to do so during the drafting of the Plan.
3. After issuing the final Plan, Z’s School held an emergency annual review. Mr X complains, after sending the review paperwork to the Council in January 2026, the Council again failed to issue an amended final Plan that included speech and language therapy (SALT) provision. He says, instead, the Council decided he would need to wait for the SEND Tribunal to consider the matter.
4. Mr X says, because of the Council’s decisions, Z will have no SALT provision for the entire appeal process (around 18 months).

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the SEND Tribunal in this decision statement.
8. 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 fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered information provided by the complainant.
10. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

11. Mr X complains the Council failed to include SALT provision in Z’s EHC Plan, despite agreeing to do so during the drafting of the Plan. We cannot investigate this matter because the alleged fault in the process is directly linked to Mr X’s SEND Tribunal appeal about the provision in Z’s Plan and specifically the lack of SALT provision. We cannot look at the consequences of the Council’s decision. This includes Mr X’s complaint that Z will miss out on SALT provision for the entire appeal process. It is for the SEND Tribunal to decide whether SALT provision should be included in Z’s Plan. We have no power to look at any complaint that overlaps with a SEND Tribunal appeal.
12. Mr X complains that the Council failed to complete a review of Z’s EHC Plan following a further review meeting in January 2026. In April, the Council said it would not amend the EHC Plan due to the ongoing appeal, but the information would be provided as part of Mr X’s appeal to the SEND Tribunal. We will not investigate this element of Mr X’s complaint because it is unlikely that we would find fault with this approach by the Council.
13. I understand Mr X is disappointed with the Council’s decision. However, there is not enough evidence of fault in its decision making to justify an investigation.
14. As the Council’s annual review decision did not change the outcome, I consider any delay in it completing this did not cause significant injustice. Therefore, we will not investigate.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We cannot investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s failure to include SALT provision in Z’s EHC Plan. This is because the complainant has appealed to a tribunal, and the issues raised are not separable from that appeal. It is unlikely we would find fault in how the Council dealt with a related matter.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman