The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure her child received the Speech and Language Therapy provision specified in their Education, Health and Care Plan. We find the Council at fault for failing to check and monitor the provision, for delays in issuing the final amended Education, Health and Care Plan, and for poor complaint handling. These faults caused loss of provision, avoidable distress, uncertainty, and unnecessary time and trouble for Mrs X. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Mrs X, and take action to improve its services.
The complaint
Mrs X complained her child, Y, has not received the Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) provision specified in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
She says that as a result, Y has missed out on essential specialist support, which has negatively affected their educational progress, social development, and emotional wellbeing. Mrs X also says the situation has caused her significant stress, worry, and unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
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 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) When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
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) Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
What I have and have not investigated 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) Mrs X became aware in early 2024 that the SALT provision in Y’s EHC Plan was not being delivered. She therefore needed to bring her complaint to the Ombudsman by early 2025. Mrs X submitted her complaint in May 2025. She explained the delay was due to Y’s health needs and wanting to allow time for Y to settle into school. Given that the delay was only a few months and that these are good reason, I have decided to investigate the complaint in full.
How I considered this complaint
I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
What I found
Relevant law and guidance EHC Plans 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. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this.
Maintaining the EHC Plan 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) 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.
Reviewing EHC Plans 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 council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. 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. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to amend, maintain or discontinue the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.
What happened Y has special educational needs and started at their current school in September 2023.
In December 2023, the Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan. Section F of the Plan specified that Y should receive twice weekly direct therapy sessions with a speech and language therapist; teaching staff support to work on Y’s SALT targets at least three times a week and to implement SALT strategies throughout the school day; and three reviews a year by the speech and language therapist.
In December 2024, Y’s annual review was held.
In January 2025, Mrs X complained to the Council that none of the SALT provision set out in Section F had been delivered since the Plan was issued.
Mrs X says later that month, Y began receiving one SALT session per week.
In February, the Council responded saying the school’s website said it had access to speech and language therapists, and that if the school required additional funding to deliver the full provision, it would consider a request upon receipt. The Council said it had not previously been aware of any gaps in delivery and was keen to work with the school and Mrs X to address these.
Mrs X escalated her complaint. She said the information on the school’s website referred to the secondary school, not Y’s setting, and the speech and language support described related to identifying needs rather than providing direct therapy. She also raised that the Council had failed to notify her of its decision following the annual review within the required statutory timescales.
In April, the Council provided its final complaint response. It said Y was receiving additional NHS SALT support and that an NHS therapist had arranged to visit the school to advise and train staff. It explained that Y was receiving a block of NHS therapy sessions from March 2024, delivered in school, and that it intended to issue the final amended EHC Plan by the end of April.
In May, Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
In June, the Council issued the final amended EHC Plan.
In response to my enquiries, the Council said it allocated funding to the school when Y’s EHC Plan was issued in December 2023 to enable delivery of the provision in section F. It said Y was seen by an NHS speech and language therapist in February 2025 and then received three therapy sessions, followed by a review in November 2025. The Council also said the school began providing additional support from spring 2025.
The Council said it checks provision through annual reviews unless an early review is requested, and that concerns about undelivered provision are dealt with under its corporate complaint’s procedure. It explained the delay in issuing the amended EHC Plan in June 2025 was due to liaison with specialist teams, extra time for family comments, staffing shortages, and IT issues.
The Council confirmed there was no recorded contact with the school about Y’s provision, citing system upgrades during this period, and it provided no explanation for the delay in responding to Mrs X’s stage two complaint.
The school’s website states it uses an online programme to assess all primary school children and identify whether a referral to speech and language therapy is required. It explains that if a child has significant language difficulties, a referral can be made to the NHS for assessment and support.
My findings
Failure to ensure delivery of provision The evidence shows the Council did not ensure the SALT provision specified in Y’s EHC Plan was in place when the Plan was first issued. This was fault. In its stage one complaint response, the Council said it was satisfied that provision was being delivered based on information published on the school’s website. The school’s website does not state that it has access to speech and language therapists. This was a flawed conclusion and therefore fault.
Evidence shows Y did not receive the SALT provision set out in the EHC Plan until January 2025 when they started to receive 1 session per week. This was fault. The Council has not provided evidence of what specific SALT support the school has delivered since that time, nor has it given a clear date when provision began. This further demonstrates a lack of monitoring.
The Council said it reviews provision during annual reviews. However, Y’s annual review took place in December 2024, and, by the Council’s own account, provision was not in place until spring 2025. This delay was fault.
Overall, the Council failed to check the provision was in place, to monitor delivery, or to act promptly when Mrs X raised concerns. As a result, Y missed out on essential support during an important stage in their education.
EHC Plan delay Y’s annual review was held in December 2024. The Council notified Mrs X of its intention to amend the EHC Plan in March 2025 and issued the final amended Plan in June 2025.
The Council should have completed the annual review process within 12 months of the original EHC Plan being issued. It should also have notified Mrs X of its intention to amend the Plan within four weeks of the review meeting and issued the final amended Plan within a further eight weeks. In this case, the Council took around 11 weeks to notify Mrs X of its intention and a further 16 weeks to issue the final Plan.
This represents a delay of around six months beyond the statutory timescales. This was fault. While the Council explained the delay was due to liaison with specialist teams, staff shortages, IT issues, and an agreed 11-day extension for family comments, these reasons do not remove the Council’s legal responsibility to meet its statutory duties.
The delay caused Mrs X and her family avoidable uncertainty and distress, and it frustrated their right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal, which they have since exercised.
Complaint handling The Council said concerns about undelivered provision should be raised through its complaints process. However, in this case, it failed to properly investigate the concerns Mrs X raised about Y not receiving the provision set out in the EHC Plan. The Council has provided no evidence that it contacted the school to confirm whether the required provision was being delivered. On the balance of probabilities, I find it did not do so. This was fault.
The Council’s final response focused mainly on the separate NHS support being provided to Y, rather than the specific provision required under the EHC Plan since December 2023 and therefore did not address the issue Mrs X had raised. This was fault.
As a result, the Council missed the opportunity to resolve the matter and caused Mrs X distress, uncertainty, and unnecessary time and trouble.
In addition, the Council did not respond to Mrs X’s stage two complaint within the 25 working days set out in its complaint’s procedure. Instead, it took 43 working days and provided no explanation for the delay. This was fault and caused Mrs X further distress and uncertainty.
Action
To remedy the injustice caused by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to: apologise to Mrs X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology ; pay Mrs X £3000 as a remedy for Y’s benefit, to recognise the loss of Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) provision between December 2023 and May 2025. I calculated this by applying the guidelines in our published Guidance on remedies , taking into account the nature and amount of missed provision and Y’s stage of education.
pay Mrs X £300 to recognise the avoidable distress and uncertainty caused by the delay issuing the final amended EHC Plan; and pay Mrs X £200 to recognise the time and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling.
Within the three months of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to review its procedure for monitoring the delivery of provision in EHC Plans to ensure that as a minimum it: checks the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; checks the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and quickly investigates and acts on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Decision I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman