[senco-forum] Conwall lands on its end on S&LT

Thursday 30th March 2006
Failure to provide speech and language  therapy

Local Government Ombudsman, Jerry White, has criticised  Cornwall County 
Council on a complaint about special educational needs. In his  report, issued 
today (30 March 2006), he finds fault by the Council and  recommends it to pay 
the complainant £1,500 and review the way it monitors  statements of special 
educational needs. The Council has agreed to implement the  Ombudsman’s 
recommended remedy. 

‘Mrs Ivy’s son, ‘Oliver’ (real names are  not used for legal reasons), was 
assessed as having delayed speech and language  development. The major part of 
the provision specified in his statement of  special educational needs (SEN) 
was speech and language therapy that was to be  provided by the local Primary 
Care Trust. Mrs Ivy complained that, for a period  from September 2002 to May 
2004, the Council failed to ensure that the provision  specified was made. She 
also complained that the Council did not conduct the  annual reviews of Oliver
’s statement in accordance with the SEN Code of Practice  in 2003 and 2005. 

The Ombudsman found that both parts of the complaint  were justified. He 
concluded that the lack of speech and language therapy caused  injustice to Oliver 
because it restricted his progress in education and meant  that his most 
significant special need was not properly addressed. He concluded  that the 
Council had not followed the SEN Code of Practice when conducting the  annual 
reviews in 2003 and 2005. This caused a delay in addressing the lack of  speech and 
language therapy in 2003.

The Council addressed the lack of  speech and language therapy promptly when 
it was drawn to its attention at the  review held in January 2004 and made 
additional resources available for an  intensive programme of therapy in 2004. In 
July 2005, during the course of the  Ombudsman’s investigation, it agreed to 
monitor Oliver’s statement on a  bi-monthly basis, to carry out an 
occupational therapy assessment of Oliver, to  make a previously supplied laptop computer 
ready for use by Oliver and to  arrange a meeting at the school to discuss 
ways of improving the partnership  between the school and visiting 
professionals. It has accepted that two annual  reviews were not properly conducted. It has 
assured the Ombudsman that it will  adhere to the Code of Practice in future. 

The Ombudsman recommends that  the Council should:

• pay Mrs Ivy the sum of £1,500 in recognition of her  injustice, frustration 
and her time and trouble in pursuing her complaint;  and

• review the way it monitors statements of special educational needs,  
particularly in relation to the timely preparation of individual education plans  
and to those statements where other agencies are involved in making the  
provision specified, so as to prevent a similar failure from occurring in the  future.

The Council has agreed to implement the  remedy.