Summary: Mr X complained the Council failed to act on safeguarding concerns raised in February 2022 and September 2025. We find the Council at fault for failing to consider whether his child, Y’s, access to education between February 2025 and February 2026 was suitable. This caused Y and Mr X uncertainty. The Council has agreed to apologise and consider whether Y is able to access any of the provision she may have missed.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to act on safeguarding concerns raised in February 2022 and September 2025. Mr X told us the Council’s long term failures have caused his child, Y, to miss education. Mr X also told us the process has had a profound impact on him due to his concerns being repeatedly dismissed and the constant ongoing battle for support is impacting his mental health and wellbeing. Mr X would like the Council to:
• Acknowledge failings an apologise.
• Fund a specialist placement or bespoke education package for his child, Y.
• Convene an urgent multi-agency meeting to discuss an immediate safety plan.
• Commission a new assessment of need.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. 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. Mr X complained to us in October 2025 about events dating back to 2022. Anything dating beyond October 2024 is classed as a late complaint. I have seen no good reason Mr X could not have complained to us sooner about events dating back beyond October 2024. For this reason, my investigation will look at the Council’s actions in considering the safeguarding concerns raised between October 2024 and December 2025.
9. Part of Mr X’s complaint relates to factual accuracy of the November 2025 Children and Family assessment. The information Commissioner is better placed to investigate complaints about data protection, therefore I have not investigated this part of Mr X’s complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Mr X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative background

Safeguarding

12. Councils have a duty to investigate if there is reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm. They must decide whether they should take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. (Children Act 1989, section 47)
13. Under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, where a council has reasonable cause to suspect that a child in their area is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm, it has a duty to make such enquiries as it considers necessary to decide whether to take any action to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. Such enquiries should be initiated where there are concerns about abuse or neglect.
14. Councils should act decisively to protect children from abuse and neglect including starting care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.
15. Where a child’s need is relatively low level, individual services and universal services may be able to take swift action. Where there are more complex needs, the council may offer a service under section 17 (child in need) or section 47 (child protection) of the Children Act 1989.  
16. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
17. A child is in need if:

• they are unlikely to achieve or maintain a reasonable standard of health or development unless the council provides support;
• their health or development is likely to be significantly impaired unless the council provides support; or
• they are disabled.

18. Under the Children Act 1989, councils are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare. Where a referral is accepted under section 17 the council should lead a multi-agency assessment and compete it within 45 working days. Where the council’s children’s social care decides to provide services, it should develop a multiagency child in need plan which sets out which organisations and agencies will provide which services to the child and family. The plan must be reviewed within three months of the start of the child in need plan and further reviews should take place at least every six months thereafter. (Working Together to Safeguard Children) 

Council’s safeguarding process

19. The Council has a published safeguarding process which sets out the thresholds for its four stages of safeguarding support. These are:
• Level one, universal – where a child or young person may need limited intervention to avoid needs arising.
• Level two, early Help – where a child or young person has needs which can be met within identified resources through a single agency response and partnership working.
• Level three, targeted early help – where a child, young person has needs requiring a multi-agency, coordinated response.
• Level four, children’s social care – where a child or young person has a high level of unmet and complex needs or is in need of protection.
20. The policy states that where referrals are received, the maximum timeframe for completing assessments and deciding next steps is 45 working days.

EHC Plan and access to education

21. 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. 
22. 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)  
23. 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. 

What happened

24. The following is a summary of key events. It is not indented to be a detailed chronology.

Background information

25. A previous safeguarding referral was made for Y in May 2024. The Council completed a Children and Family assessment. The outcome was case closure with advice and guidance provided to the relevant people.

Safeguarding 2024

26. At the beginning of October 2024, Y’s school made a safeguarding referral due to Mr X raising concerns about Y being dysregulated and not attending school. The Council accepted this as a referral for level three support.
27. During the first week of November 2024, the Council received a further safeguarding referral from Mr X. The Council responded to Mr X explaining that there was already a level three referral open. The Council signposted Mr X to relevant services who may be able to provide support.
28. At the end of November 2024, the Council’s assessed the safeguarding referral and offered the family support at level two. Mr X attended a level two support session in December 2024 during which the Council signposted Mr X for relevant support services.

Safeguarding 2025

29. The Council received a further safeguarding referral in June 2025 from a charity supporting Mr X. The Council offered advice and guidance in response to this referral.
30. Y’s GP made a safeguarding referral to the Council at the end of July 2025. The Council accepted this referral for level three support.
31. Mr X contacted the Council a further two times in September to raise safeguarding concerns. The Council continued with the open referral, which was assessed at the end of September 2025, within 45 working days of the initial GP referral. The outcome of the Council’s assessment was to allocate a Family Practitioner to support the family under level three support. The Family Practitioner made contact with the family on the same day the Council decision was made.
32. Mr X made a further safeguarding referral in the first week of November. The Council accepted this referral and agreed to complete a Children and Family assessment under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
33. By the end of November, the Council had completed a thorough, balanced and considered assessment and considered evidence provided by Mr X. The outcome of the assessment was there was no evidence to support Mr X’s safeguarding concerns. The Council decision was to support the family at levels two and three.
34. Towards the end of November Mr X contacted the Council to formally challenge the outcome and content of the Children and Family assessment. Mr X said the assessment contained false information and had failed to consider key evidence.
35. The Council responded to Mr X at the end of November. The Council did not believe the assessment contained factually inaccurate information, but accepted Mr X’s views differed. The Council agreed to review the records for accuracy and ensure Mr X’s differing views were added to the record. The council completed this review and provided Mr X a detailed response in December which explained why it did not agree the assessment contained factually inaccurate information.
36. In the first week of December a Team Around the Family (TAF) meeting was held and an early help plan was completed. During the TAF meeting Mr X was reminded the Council do not have a role to play in deciding private contact arrangements as this is a matter for the court.
37. The Council supported the family through early help until the middle of December. The Council made the decision to close the case as the early help plan could not achieve the intended outcomes and other Council services were better placed to offer support.
38. Mr X agreed with the Council decision that the early help support could not secure the outcome he was seeking and agreed to pursue a contact arrangement through the courts.

Access to education

39. Following an annual review, the Council issued an amended EHC Plan for Y in October 2024.
40. Y’s attendance at school declined following this review. Between February and June 2025 Y accessed alternative provision. From March 2025 Y received two hours per week of at home tuition.
41. The Council completed a phase transfer annual review at the end of June 2025. During this annual review it was noted that Y was only attending school for one hour per week and was unable to access alternative provision due to anxiety. Y continued to receive the home tuition.
42. The Council told us it responded to Y’s lack of education at this stage by recommending the school increase in home tuition however this was not followed up.
43. The Council contacted the school again in October 2025 to request it increase Y’s alternative provision to include one hour of daily tutoring and 2-3 hours per week of social, emotional and mental health support with the aim of increasing Y’s provision to twenty hours per week. The Council told us it was Y’s mother’s preference for virtual schooling to continue.
44. The Council told us there is no evidence it has actively challenged the limited education offer and the absence of recorded evidence indicates its SEN team did not provide sufficient support, funding or direction to ensure the school delivered the special educational provision detailed in Y’s EHC Plan.
45. The Council accepts there was a significant period of time where it should have formally considered its section 19 duty and the suitability of the provision on offer.
46. The Council issued a final amended EHC Plan in February 2026.

My findings

47. In response to our enquiries the Council explained the referrals relating to Y did not meet its threshold for level four support as there was not enough evidence to support Y was at risk of abuse or harm because of parental abuse or neglect.
48. There is no evidence of fault in the Council’s consideration of the safeguarding referrals. The Council completed multiple assessments and determined there were no safeguarding issues. The Council continued to support the family at level through through early help.
49. The Council failed to formally consider its section 42 duty to secure Y’s special educational provision once it was aware Y was unable to attend her named setting between February 2025 and February 2026. This is fault.
50. Given that it is documented Y had significant difficulty accessing the alternative provision on offer, and virtual schooling was parental preference, I cannot say the Council would have accepted a section 42 duty or provided a different offer had it considered its duties. Therefore, I cannot conclude the fault caused a loss of education. The fault caused Y and Mr X distress, frustration and uncertainty.

Back to top

Action

51. Within one month of the final decision the Council will:
• Apologise to Mr X for the injustice caused by the faults identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making its apology.
• Consider whether Y missed any special educational provision between February 2025 and February 2026 which she would have been able to access had the Council considered its section 42 duty. If Y did miss specific educational provision, the Council should determine whether Y is able to access this now. If Y can access any missed special educational provision, the Council should set out a timebound plan for this to be delivered.
52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

53. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman