Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with the speech and language therapy outlined in her Education, Health and Care Plan. We have decided to end our investigation into Mrs X’s complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for her to have exercised her appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter (Y) with the speech and language therapy (SALT) outlined in her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs X says the matter has caused distress and upset and Y has been struggling with her communication and social interactions.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
3. 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.
4. 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)
5. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information from Mrs X and the Council.
7. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

8. Y has special educational needs and an 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. Section F of Y’s EHC Plan says she needs direct blocks of individual/small group SALT sessions, as required, to focus on specific communication skills development.
9. The school Y attends held an annual review of her EHC Plan in November 2023. Mrs X said the Council had failed to provide Y with any SALT since 2021.
10. The Council issued Y’s amended final EHC Plan in March 2024. This gave Mrs X her right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. The Council did not change the SALT provision in the amended Plan.

Back to top

Analysis

11. I have only considered matters from July 2023 onwards. Events before then are caught by the restriction in paragraph five of this statement. I am satisfied Mrs X could have bought her earlier concerns to us sooner.
12. Y’s EHC Plan is not specific on how many SALT sessions she requires and how often she should receive it. The content of an EHC Plan is for the SEND Tribunal, rather than the Ombudsman, to resolve. Only the SEND Tribunal can direct the Council to include specific provision. It would have been reasonable for Mrs X to have appealed to the SEND Tribunal about the content of Y’s EHC Plan either when it was first finalised, or when she received the amended final EHC Plan in March 2024. While I appreciate Mrs X is complaining about the Council’s failure to provide the SALT provision, which is not something the SEND Tribunal can consider, it is too closely linked to something which was appealable (the lack of specificity in Y’s EHC Plan). Therefore, I will end my investigation into Mrs X’s complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

13. I have ended my investigation into Mrs X’s complaint. This is because it would have been reasonable for her to have exercised her appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman