The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: The Council was at fault because it failed to ensure a child received speech and language therapy. However, the Council has offered an appropriate remedy for this. The Council was also at fault because it delayed consulting the therapist about the possibility of arranging catch-up sessions; and, although there was no material impact from this delay, it has agreed to apologise for the frustration it caused. We have therefore completed our investigation.
The complaint
I will refer to the complainant as Ms W.
Ms W complains the Council did not ensure the provision of speech and language therapy for her daughter, C, when this was required by her education, health & care (EHC) plan.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended) We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended) 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(i), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
I reviewed C’s EHC plan, and Ms W’s correspondence with the Council.
What I found
C has several disabilities, some of which affect her ability to communicate. She has an EHC plan, which sets out a range of additional educational provision she should receive to support her. One aspect of this provision is speech and language therapy (SALT).
Before July 2021, C’s EHC plan required her to receive a minimum of six hours of SALT per year. Ms W then appealed about this to the Special Educational Need and Disability (SEND) Tribunal, with the result that C’s SALT provision was increased to 47 hours per year.
However, instead C’s SALT provision was terminated at this point. Ms W says the Council told her it had done this “by accident”.
Ms W pursued this matter with the Council, culminating in her making a formal complaint in March 2022, which she escalated to stage 2 of the Council’s complaint procedure after receiving its initial response. Ms W made a complaint to the Ombudsman in May.
The Council sent Ms W its stage 2 response on 1 June. It accepted C’s SALT provision had stopped suddenly and that it had not notified her of this, for which the Council apologised.
The Council also accepted C had missed 47 sessions of SALT, as Ms W had calculated, and although it commented that it had attempted to commission the therapy, “it was not delivered during the time specified by [Ms W]”. It explained there were nationwide pressures on SALT provision, which had contributed to the problem, but agreed this was not an excuse for its failure in C’s case.
The Council said it would now commission ‘catch-up’ sessions for C to make up for the lost provision.
In August, the Council provided us with further information. It had contacted C’s therapist to arrange the catch-up sessions, but, having discussed the matter with Ms W, C and staff at C’s school, the therapist had decided it was not appropriate. This was because the extra sessions would likely have a negative impact on C’s other schoolwork, and because the appropriate time period for C to have the SALT had now passed. The therapist had instead recommended any additional funding be used to support C’s mental health instead.
The Council said it would therefore not commission the catch-up sessions, and instead offered to pay Ms W £1200 as a remedy for the missed provision instead, with the intention it should be used for C’s benefit.
Ms W has now confirmed to me she has rejected this offer.
Analysis Both Ms W and the Council have agreed C missed a total of 47 hours of SALT provision. The Council initially said it would commission catch-up sessions for C, but dropped this proposal when the therapist recommended against it. It has now, instead, offered a financial remedy of £1200, to be used for C’s benefit.
The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies says that, where a child has missed education through council fault, we will generally recommend a payment of between £200 and £600 per month of missed education, depending on the individual circumstances of the case; and with the intent that the money should be used for the child’s educational benefit.
However, C did not miss education in the general sense, she simply missed one aspect of her additional provision. With this in mind, and while I acknowledge Ms W has already rejected this offer, I consider £1200 to be a remedy appropriate to the circumstances here.
And, as this is something the Council has offered without prompting by the Ombudsman, I will not make a recommendation.
There is another point on which I will criticise the Council here. Although I do not have a copy of the Council’s stage 1 response, I understand it assured Ms W it would arrange catch-up sessions for C. This Council sent this letter to Ms W on 4 March; but I can also see the Council did not actually consult the therapist about additional sessions until 1 June, nearly three months later.
I will assume this was an oversight by the Council, but, under the circumstances, it should have been a matter of some urgency. I therefore consider this an additional point of fault by the Council.
Given her reasons for doing so, it appears reasonable to assume the therapist would still have recommended against catch-up sessions, even if the Council had consulted with her sooner than June. So it does not appear anything material has been lost by the Council’s delay in contacting her.
However, Ms W expressed frustration the promised catch-up sessions had not materialised when she approached the Ombudsman in May. Although this was not to be anyway, Ms W’s frustration could have been avoided if the Council had been more prompt in consulting the therapist, and then notifying Ms W of the response. I consider this an injustice to Ms W, for which the Council should offer a further apology. I make a recommendation to this effect.
Agreed action
Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to write a formal letter of apology to Ms W, for its delay in consulting with the speech and language therapist about catch-up sessions for C, and the frustration this caused her.
Final decision
I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault causing injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman