The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: Mrs X complained about the Council’s failure to provide her child with suitable education or special educational provision when they stopped attending school. This caused significant frustration and distress, and her child missed out on support they were entitled to. We found the Council at fault. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to recognise the injustice caused.
The complaint
Mrs X complains the Council failed to provide a suitable full-time education to her child when they could no longer attend school and failed to provide them with provision outlined in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This caused Mrs X significant distress, frustration and she says her child’s mental health was negatively impacted, and they missed out on education they were entitled to.
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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), 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(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 I am considering events from April 2025 (when Mrs X’s child stopped attending school) to around September 2025 (when the Council issued its final response to her complaint). Events after this are outside the scope of my investigation. If Mrs X is dissatisfied with the Council’s actions after this, she is entitled to make a new formal complaint direct to the Council for it to consider through its complaint’s procedure first.
How I considered this complaint
I discussed the complaint with Mrs X and considered her views.
I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, 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 received before making a final decision.
What I found
Law and administrative background Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans A child 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.
The council has a duty to make sure the child 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.
Alternative provision Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that councils must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which make the school inaccessible to the child. The alternative educational provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.
If the council decides it must arrange alternative provision, it needs to arrange provision based on the child’s individual needs. It should also have a review process to ensure the provision remains in the child’s best interests. Councils can decide a child cannot cope with full-time provision. When this happens, the Council should provide reasons for the amount of provision it arranges.
If a child has an EHC Plan the council also has an ongoing duty to arrange the support guaranteed by the Plan. However, this might not always be possible, such as where SEN support is designed for the child’s normal classroom setting.
Background
Mrs X’s child (D) has special educational needs. Their EHC Plan, active at the time, named the “School”. Section F included weekly outdoor learning, daily direct support and interventions relating to Occupational Therapy (OT) and weekly Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) support.
What happened – summary of key relevant events In late April 2025, D stopped attending the School. Two weeks later, the School and the Council met to discuss a way forward. The School would do some online sessions with D.
In early June 2025, the Council held an annual review of D’s EHC Plan. The review notes showed both the School and Mrs X felt it could not meet D’s needs. D did not want to return. Mrs X also raised concerns D’s EHC Plan was out of date and needed amending to reflect D’s current needs.
In mid-June 2025, Mrs X formally complained about D’s lack of full-time education and special educational provision. She said the School’s online sessions were not education and did not work for D. She proposed suggestions of suitable provision but had no meaningful solutions from the Council.
A few weeks later, the Council’s Panel agreed to fund an alternative provision (AP) package of 6 hours tutoring and two days at an outdoor provision, for the rest of the summer term. The Council also later agreed to conduct a formal reassessment of D’s needs.
In mid-July 2025, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint at Stage 1 and her other contacts about the amount of provision. It had so far found two tutors, but Mrs X said they were not suitable. It explained its initial AP package was a starting point, rather than a fixed maximum. This approach was to support D in building up gradually to mitigate the risk of disengagement. It would keep it under regular review to ensure it remained appropriate and could be increased if necessary. It considered it acted promptly to secure suitable AP for D and this amount would continue from September. Mrs X escalated her complaint.
In late September 2025, the Council sent its Stage 2 response. It generally maintained its previous findings. It aimed to steadily re-engage D with their education in a positive way. It would develop it in line with their needs and engagement. It was continuing its reassessment of D to help identify any additional needs and provision required. Mrs X then complained to us.
In response to my enquiries, the Council said AP started for D from September 2025. It made several Panel decisions during the period, and it agreed to reimburse Mrs X for expenses incurred with activities and resources for D.
Analysis After D stopped attending the School, the Council took action to meet with Mrs X and the School and then later at an annual review. It then made a decision it had a Section 19 duty to D. I do not consider the Council at fault for this, nor did it significantly delay between these steps.
Mrs X raised concerns with the amount of provision as she said it fell significantly short of full-time education. But at that point, the Council explained its reasons. It considered D's situation and felt it was acting in their best interests, and it would review and adjust this when necessary. This gradual approach was a decision it was entitled to take at the time. While Mrs X disagreed, I do not criticise the merits of the Council’s professional judgement on this.
However, the Council did not put provision in place until September 2025. I can see the Council made positive efforts to try and secure tutors before this, but Mrs X raised issues with them so they did not work out. I appreciate this contributed to delays, but ultimately D missed out on education. This is fault.
The Council also had a legal duty to provide Section F provision during this period. The Council has not provided evidence it appropriately secured provision outlined in D’s EHC Plan (see Paragraph 14) between May and September 2025. This is fault. This, and the above, caused injustice to D as they missed out on a period of education and provision they were entitled to, for around one school term. I appreciate D did get some provision which Mrs X sourced herself, but this caused also caused avoidable frustration and distress for Mrs X.
On balance, while Mrs X did not always agree with the Council, I consider the Council were generally responsive to her concerns where it could be. There were some delays with its complaint handling. This caused Mrs X some additional frustration. But I also note it updated her about the extra time needed due to the nature of her complaint, which is appropriate.
Agreed Action
To remedy the personal injustice set out above, the Council agreed to carry out the following actions within one month of the final decision: Apologise to Mrs X and D (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology ) for the injustice caused by the faults identified; and Pay Mrs X a symbolic payment of £1,200 to recognise the impact to Mrs X and D of missed special education provision and education for the period I am considering. This could be used for D’s educational benefit.
The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
Decision I find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to the recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman