Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, that the Council failed to ensure two children received consistent and suitable tuition. This is because we do not consider there is any evidence of significant fault by the Council, and we are satisfied the Council has proposed an appropriate way to address the provision that was missed.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mrs G.
2. Mrs G complains the Council has failed to ensure her children consistently receive adequate, full-time tuition as part of their ‘education other than at school’ (EOTAS) packages. She says this also means they have not been receiving some of the specialist provision set out in their education, health and care plans. Mrs G say she has had to try to fill in some of the gaps herself, and that she has been unable to work as a result.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs G and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. The following is intended only to provide a brief overview of this complaint.
7. Mrs G has two children with special educational needs, each of whom has an education, health and care (EHC) plan, naming their educational placement as ‘EOTAS’, to be delivered in the form of home tuition.
8. Through 2024 the Council worked with several agencies to commission tutors to teach a range of subjects to each child. The agencies identified numerous different tutors as potential candidates for the roles, but it proved very difficult for the Council to make sustainable arrangements.
9. In some cases, tutors worked well with the children for several months, before withdrawing from the roles for different reasons; others withdrew very soon after starting, or did not start at all. Mrs G also rejected several of the proposed tutors because she did not feel they were appropriately qualified for the role, or because she felt they were unreliable.
10. Between June 2024 and January 2025 Mrs G completed the Council’s complaint process about this matter. She said the Council had failed to meet its duty to provide education to the children, had been dishonest about the reasons one of the proposed candidates had been unsuccessful, and had been slow to respond to some offers from the tuition agencies, which meant the tutors had already taken other roles by the time the Council responded.
11. In response, the Council acknowledged its requirement to provide the children with education, and accepted this had been inconsistent. However, it explained it had no control over which tutors were available, and nor could it prevent them withdrawing from the role. The Council also explained it had been hindered by how specific Mrs G’s personal requirements were for accepting candidates. The Council offered to provide catch-up tuition for the children as a remedy for their missed provision.
12. Mrs G then referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2025. She reiterated the children had missed significant elements of education due to the lack of tutoring, and that this included specialist provision set out in section F of their EHC plans. Mrs G said she had been forced to tutor the children herself, meaning she could not work, and said the Council should provide compensation.

Back to top

Analysis

13. On the basis of the evidence available to me, I do not consider it appropriate to continue my investigation of this case.
14. The Council has provided me with a detailed chronology, explaining when and how the various different candidates were identified, which ones actually took up the role and what they provided, and which ones were unsuccessful and the reasons for that. Having reviewed this, I am satisfied it is not generally reasonable to say the difficulty experienced in providing consistent tuition to the children has arisen because of any fault by the Council.
15. As the Council has explained, it has no control over the availability of candidates for the roles. Nor can the Council control what qualifications and experience the available candidates have. I acknowledge, and in no way dismiss, Mrs G’s rationale for deciding some were unsuitable, but this does not mean the Council was at fault.
16. Mrs G says the Council wrongly accused her of rejecting one candidate, when he actually withdrew from the role of his own volition. This may be the case, but given the number of different candidates which have been proposed for the role – 10, by the Council’s count – I do not consider this is significant enough to justify further investigation on its own.
17. Mrs G also says the Council was too slow to respond to offers, meaning tutors were no longer available by the time it did. I can see one specific instance, in June 2024, where Mrs G complained to the Council a potential candidate had been lost because of this.
18. I have no further information about this incident and so I cannot make a judgement; but, even if I accepted this, I am satisfied it does not explain the general inconsistency in the children’s tuition over the year in question. It is clear the Council responded promptly to most of the tuition agencies’ offers, and the candidates either did not start or remain in post for their own reasons, or because Mrs G did not consider them suitable.
19. None of this is to suggest it is unimportant that the children did not receive consistent tuition. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to identify, and address the consequences of, administrative fault by councils. I do not consider the evidence in this case points to any fault by the Council, which would be significant enough to lead me to make recommendations.
20. We can also find fault in instances of ‘service failure’. This is where a council has been unable to properly discharge its duty through no fault of its own, and despite its best efforts. But, while I might consider it appropriate to make such a finding if (for example) there had simply been no candidates available at all, that is obviously not the case here. There were many potential candidates for the role, but each one eventually dropped out for their own reasons, or did not meet Mrs G’s preferences. I do not consider this can reasonably be described as a general failure of the Council’s service.
21. I am also satisfied the Council’s suggestion to arrange catch-up provision is reasonable. Mrs G has explained this is impractical, as neither the children nor their current tutors have capacity to undertake additional hours. I acknowledge this obstacle, but I consider this too speculative to suggest catch-up provision is entirely inappropriate. In either case, as I am not satisfied there is any evidence of fault or service failure here, I would not be able to make any recommendation for financial remedy as requested by Mrs G.
22. Taking these points together, I do not consider further investigation of Mrs G’s complaint will provide a different outcome.

Back to top

Decision

23. I have discontinued my investigation.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman