Summary: The Council was at fault for delay referring Ms X’s child for tuition after they were excluded from school, delay assessing the effectiveness of its home tuition trial, and delay exploring other options to engage the child in education. The Council also responded to Ms X’s complaint late. These faults caused Ms X uncertainty and frustration. The Council will make a payment to Ms X.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her child with an education when they were permanently excluded from school. She also complained the Council handled her complaint poorly.
2. Ms X said her child has missed over a year of education. She said this has had a significant impact on her child’s mental health and behaviour, as well as the impact of missed education. Ms X said it caused her unnecessary and avoidable distress and frustration, and it had a significant impact on her and her other children.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. 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(i), as amended)
6. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered the information and documents provided by Ms X and the Council. I spoke to Ms X about her complaint. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.
8. I considered the relevant legislation, statutory guidance, and policies, set out below. I also considered the Ombudsman’s published guidance on remedies.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

Alternative education provision

9. Councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils who are out of school because of exclusion, illness or for other reasons, if they would not receive suitable education without such arrangements. (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision.
10. When a child has been excluded, the council must implement alternative education provision from the sixth day of the exclusion.
11. The guidance says:

“All children, regardless of circumstance or setting, should expect to receive the same high standards of education as their peers in a mainstream school (or special school if applicable).”

(Arranging Alternative Provision: A Guide for Local Authorities and Schools)

Complaints

12. The Council’s complaints procedure sets out how it will investigate complaints. This says the Council will send a stage one complaint response within 15 working days. It says the Council will review a complaint at stage two and send a further complaint response within 20 working days.

What happened

13. Ms X’s child, B, has significant learning needs. In January 2024, they were permanently excluded from school.
14. In late-February or early March, the Council referred B to its home bridging team. This team provides home tuition for children. The Council also began consulting with schools to find a suitable placement for B.
15. In June, a councillor complained to the Council on Ms X’s behalf.
16. In its response, the Council said Ms X told it that home tuition would not work for B because of their needs. The Council said its home bridging team had continued to visit B regularly to try and get B to engage. The Council said this had limited success. It said its home bridging team would continue to visit B. It said it would look into other options to help B engage in education.
17. The Council said it had consulted with a number of schools but none of them could meet B’s needs. It apologised for causing frustration by not keeping Ms X up to date.
18. In September, Ms X complained to the Council that B had received no education since January.
19. In October, Ms X asked the Council to look at her complaint at stage two because it had not sent her a stage one response.
20. In December, Ms X complained to the Ombudsman. We asked the Council about Ms X’s complaint.
21. Shortly after, the Council called Ms X. The Council discussed the possibility of providing a programme for B outside the home to start in January 2025.
22. A week later, the Council sent a stage two complaint response. It apologised for not responding sooner. It again apologised for not keeping Ms X up to date. The Council said none of the schools it consulted had been able to meet B’s needs. It proposed a joint package of education to be delivered by its home bridging team and an alternative provider.

Analysis

Alternative education provision

23. Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her child, B, with an education when they were permanently excluded from school.
24. Ms X said she told the Council from the start that B would not be able to engage with tuition at home because of their needs. She said she told the Council B could engage with tuition outside the home.
25. The Council should have implemented alternative provision from the sixth day after B was excluded. This would have been early February. The Council referred B to its home bridging team (to provide home tuition) in late February or early March. The home bridging team started working with B after this.
26. I find the Council delayed making this referral. This is fault. However, I do not find this fault caused injustice. I find B did not miss out on any provision. This is because of the lack of success in other Council efforts to engage B with provision outside a school environment. I address this later.
27. The Council said it tried to give the home bridging tutor time to build a relationship with B to enable B to engage. The Council said this is standard process.
28. I understand the Council’s reason for allowing time to see if the tutor could build a relationship with B to engage in education. However, the evidence seems to indicate the Council did not recognise until July that home-based tutoring was not working for B. I find the Council should have been more proactive in assessing the effectiveness of its trial with home-based tutoring, which Ms X said would not work. I find the Council at fault for the delay.
29. I find this delay caused Ms X uncertainty, which is injustice. I do not find this caused B injustice because I do not find B missed out on provision that they could have engaged with or managed.
30. The Council told the Ombudsman it started exploring additional provision with the alternative provider in November 2024. However, the Council told the councillor in July it would look at other options to engage B in education. I have seen no evidence the Council did this between July and November. This delay is fault.
31. I find this delay caused Ms X uncertainty, which is injustice. I do not find this caused B injustice because I do not find B missed out on provision they could have engaged with or managed.
32. In December, the Council told Ms X it would look to arrange a joint package of provision from January 2025. This would be delivered by its home bridging team and the alternative provider. The Council said it put mentoring in place in January 2025 but B did not engage.
33. The alternative provider began working with B in June 2025. The Council said there was a delay in starting B with the alternative provider. This was because B needs two staff members present for safeguarding reasons. The Council said the provider had not been able to provide adequate staff. This is service failure. I have explained service failure above (see paragraph four). The provider said B struggled to engage with this provision.
34. On balance, I find the Council, through its home bridging team, worked consistently to engage with B. I find the Council tried to put in place provision to meet B’s needs.
35. The Council said its home bridging team told Ms X it could try tutoring at home or in a local space, like a library. It said Ms X told the home bridging team that B would not manage or engage anywhere other than school.
36. The Council consulted many school placements. This is the only environment I find Ms X told the Council B could manage and engage with. Unfortunately, none of the schools have been able to meet B’s needs. This is not the Council’s fault.

Complaint handling

37. Ms X complained the Council handled her complaint poorly.
38. Ms X complained in September 2024. The Council should have sent its stage one complaint response by the end of September, within 15 working days. The Council failed to send a stage one complaint response. This is fault.
39. In October, Ms X asked the Council for stage two because she had not received a stage one response. The Council should have responded by November, within 20 working days. The Council sent its stage two response in December, a month late. This is fault.
40. I find the fault caused Ms X injustice because it caused uncertainty and frustration.
41. The Council apologised for the injustice. I am satisfied with this apology.

Back to top

Action

42. Within four weeks of this decision, the Council has agreed to make a payment of £450 to Ms X. This is made up as follows:
• £250 for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay recognising that home-based tuition was not working for B, and the delay exploring alternative options. I have taken into consideration the length of time involved. I therefore consider £250 is appropriate and proportionate for the level of injustice; and,
• £200 for the frustration and uncertainty caused by the delay in handling Ms X’s complaint. I have taken into consideration the length of time involved and that Ms X did not get a stage one complaint response. This denied her the opportunity of having the Council review her complaint and its response at stage two. I therefore consider £200 is appropriate and proportionate for the level of injustice.
• £250 plus £200 is £450.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

44. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to take action to remedy injustice.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman