Summary: We found fault with the Council for failing to keep Mrs X’s child’s access to education under suitable review from March 2025 to the end of the academic year. The Council agreed to reconsider its Section 19 duty to arrange alternative provision of education for Mrs X’s child considering up-to-date information, apologise to Mrs X and pay her £400 for her child’s potential lost opportunity and her uncertainty caused by the Council’s fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide alternative provision of education for her child who stopped attending school in October 2024. Mrs X says this resulted in her child missing education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended).
3. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended).
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
5. 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

6. I have investigated Mrs X’s complaint from when she first told the Council about her child’s absence from school, in October 2024.
7. I have chosen to end my investigation at the end of the academic year despite the Council issuing a final complaint response in March 2025. This is because the Council promised to carry out specific actions in March 2025 as part of its complaint response which directly relates to the content of Mrs X’s complaint. This impacted Mrs X’s child’s potential access to education for the rest of the academic year and the Council continued to know about Y’s situation.
8. I have not investigated any matters since September 2025 because this would need to be the subject of a new complaint. It would be appropriate for Mrs X to bring any issues for the 2025/2026 academic year to the Council’s attention first so it has an opportunity to address this.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision before I made a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Alternative provision of education rules and regulations

11. 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. The provision generally should be full-time unless it is not in the child’s interests. (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative provision of education.
12. The courts have considered the circumstances where the section 19 duty applies. Caselaw has established that a council will have a duty to provide alternative education under section 19 if there is no suitable education available to the child which is “reasonably practicable” for the child to access. The “acid test” is whether educational provision the council has offered is “available and accessible to the child”. (R (on the application of DS) v Wolverhampton City Council 2017)
13. We have issued guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to provide education for children who, for whatever reason, do not attend school full-time. Out of school, out of sight? published July 2022
14. We made six recommendations. Councils should:

• consider the individual circumstances of each case and be aware that a council may need to act whatever the reason for absence (except for minor issues that schools deal with on a day-to-day basis) – even when a child is on a school roll;
• consult all the professionals involved in a child's education and welfare, taking account of the evidence when making decisions;
• consider (based on all the evidence) whether to require attendance at school or provide the child with suitable Alternative Provision;
• keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing it if a child’s capacity to learn increases;
• work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to mainstream education as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary; and
• put the chosen action into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.

15. Where councils arrange for schools or other bodies to carry out their functions on their behalf, the council remains responsible. Therefore councils should retain oversight and control to ensure their duties are properly fulfilled.
16. Government guidance on a council’s section 19 duties recommends councils arrange education for a child from the sixth day of absence when a child is absent for non-medical reasons. Government guidance recommends for medical issues that a council considers its Section 19 duty to provide education where it is clear the absence will be for more than 15 school days, whether that is consecutive or over the school year. When a council arranges alternative education on medical grounds, that education should begin as soon as possible, and at the latest by the sixth day of a child’s absence.
17. Our role is to check councils carry out their duties properly and where they owe the duty to arrange alternative provision, that they provide suitable education for children who would not otherwise receive it. We do not have the power to consider the actions of schools.

What happened

18. In September 2024, Mrs X’s child, who I shall refer to as Y, stopped attending school.
19. Mrs X contacted the Council on 14 October 2024 to advise Y had not been attending school. Mrs X asked the Council to provide alternative provision of education for her child.
20. The Council contacted Y’s school, discussed Y and advised it to arrange a meeting with Mrs X. Y’s school held this on 25 October 2024. During this meeting, the school formed a plan with Mrs X for Y’s access to education. This plan included for Y to attend mental health support sessions, go into school so it could explore adjustments, access to school through a reduced timetable and for Mrs X to consider input from council family support services. The school also told Mrs X to seek referrals from Y’s doctor to get input from professionals about Y’s absence. The school planned to review this in November 2024.
21. At the review in November 2024, the school confirmed:
• Y continued to access mental health sessions but the school recommended Mrs X sought medical evidence to support Y’s absence from mental health support sessions provider.
• Mrs X should contact Y’s doctors to put in referrals to suitable professionals for Y.
• Y had not attended school so it had not been able to put support or adjustments in place.
• Mrs X had declined input from council family support services.
22. The Council sought an update from the school about Y’s situation in November 2024. Y’s school provided an update to the Council’s about Y’s lack of access to education. Y’s school said it would be inviting Mrs X to another meeting because of lack of progress. Y’s school confirmed Y did not have input from medical professionals yet and was waiting on Mrs X getting referrals from Y’s doctor. The Council liaised with Mrs X about Y’s situation who confirmed the mental health sessions provider could not provide a letter advising Y could not attend school and she had spoken with Y’s doctor who had agreed to make referrals to the relevant professionals. The Council discussed potential next steps with the school.
23. By the end of November 2024, the Council decided it had no medical evidence to support Y’s absence from school. The Council suggested Y’s school should proceed down the truancy route so a panel could be formed to better understand Y’s barriers to education. The Council suggested another option would be for a formal request for alternative provision of education it could consider again. The Council said, however, that at present there was no evidence to support this.
24. Following the meeting with the school in December 2024, Mrs X asked the Council about alternative provision of education. The Council responded to advise that because of the lack of medical evidence it would not provide alternative provision of education. The Council said the plan was for Mrs X and Y to work with the school who had put in place a reintegration plan for Y and an opportunity for online learning.
25. In January 2025, Mrs X told the school she felt there was a long way to go before Y could attend school but she was keen for online sessions to start. Mrs X confirmed Y’s doctor had made a referral to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and had not heard back from the previous referrals to date. The school arranged a meeting with Mrs X to discuss starting the online learning and wanted Y to attend this meeting, which Y did not. The school reiterated its offer of opportunities for Y to visit the school to meet a trusted adult and a part-time timetable for reintegration. Y’s school sought input from the Council which it provided.
26. Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council in February 2025. Mrs X said:
• The Council rejected alternative provision of education for her child because she did not have medical evidence to support Y’s absence.
• She did not have medical evidence because CAMHS had rejected two referrals for Y and no response from referrals to other professionals.
• Y had input through mental health sessions but these did not help Y.
• It was clear Y had Emotional Based School Avoidance despite and she believed the Council should be providing education because Y had been absent for over 15 days.
27. In February 2025, the school made further plans with Mrs X and Y about Y’s education. Mrs X picked up a device from school so Y could access online learning.
28. The Council issued a complaint response near the end of February 2025. The Council said:
• There was no evidence Y is experiencing Emotional Based School avoidance at the levels needed for the threshold for targeted specialised support.
• It considered Y’s school was appropriate provision for Y and it was best placed to meet Y’s needs.
• It was aware of a plan in place between the school and Mrs X to support Y’s reintegration.
• It had offered a referral to council family support services to complete an assessment of Y to better understand the barriers to education but Mrs X rejected this. The Council offered this again.
29. Mrs X responded to the Council to advise:
• She considered Y did have Emotional Based School Avoidance at a level that would meet targeted specialist support.
• Y cannot access any support in school because Y cannot access the school environment.
• An educational psychologist recommended applying for an Education, Health and Care Plan for Y which would confirm what, if any, support Y needed for their education. Mrs X said she had made this application now.
• The school has advised her it cannot meet Y’s needs and has questioned why the Council has declined alternative provision of education.
• She has now agreed for the school to make a referral for council family support services.
30. The Council discussed the matter internally with its Educational Psychologist team who advised it had not discussed Y at the last planning meeting with the school in November 2024. The Educational Psychologist team said they were due to check-in with the school in a few weeks and would contact the school for an update on Y.
31. In March 2025, the school submitted an alternative provision of education information sheet to the Council. In this document, the school said it was ‘unable to find the correct of support to engage’ Y at this setting. The school requested alternative provision of education that could encourage and enable Y to attend school.
32. On 7 March 2025, the Council told Mrs X it had asked its Educational Psychologist team to discuss Y at the next termly meeting with Y’s school which it would hold later in March 2025. The Council said this team is best placed to advise Y’s school on what action to take to support Y.
33. The Educational Psychologist team did not meet with the school until May 2025. When it did, the Council said it did not discuss Y because the school did not bring Y up for discussion. Y only attended one half day session at school for the rest of the school year.

Analysis

34. Mrs X told the Council about Y’s absence from school on 14 October 2024 when Y had been absent for more than 15 school days. This meant the Council needed to consider whether it owed a Section 19 to provide alternative provision of education for Y, and, if so, decide how it could support Y’s access to education. The Council had to decide what action to take without delay.
35. The Council contacted Y’s school to discuss the matter, resulting in the meeting on 25 October 2024 following which the Council decided this was a school matter and Y’s school put in place a reintegration plan for Y. The Council has acted quickly in response to this matter any delay from 14 October 2024 to 25 October did not cause a significant personal injustice to Mrs X or Y.
36. From 25 October 2024 to March 2025, the Council has shown it has considered Y’s individual circumstances on several occasions. The Council liaised with Y’s school regularly who, until March 2025, did not advise that it could not meet Y’s needs. Mrs X told the Council the mental health sessions provider could not confirm Y was unable to attend school. And, Mrs X told the Council and school on repeat occasions all other medical professionals Y was referred to advised Y did not meet the criteria for their involvement and rejected the referrals and she had no medical evidence to support Y’s absence. As such, aside from the school, there were no other professionals for the Council to liaise with about Y’s absence.
37. The Council provided advice to Y’s school about potentially going down the truancy route, which Y’s school decided against. The Council ultimately decided Y’s school was offering suitable and accessible education for Y and provided input about the reintegration plans and ensured Y’s school kept it updated on the education on offer to Y.
38. The Council followed the relevant law and guidance in deciding that suitable and accessible education was available to Y. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make. There was no fault in the Council’s process in its decision making so I cannot comment on the merits of the judgement it made that Y’s school was providing an available and accessible education up to March 2025.
39. In March 2025 Y’s school told the Council it could not meet Y’s needs and needed extra support from the Council in the form of alternative provision of education for Y. The Council told Mrs X it would discuss Y at a meeting with Y’s school. Not only did this meeting not take place in March 2025 as advised, when it did take place, the Council did not discuss Y. While Y’s school may not have raised Y at the meeting, the Council told Mrs X it would discuss Y; this was fault by the Council.
40. The Council was responsible for considering its Section 19 duty to arrange alternative provision of education having updated information available to it from the school that it did not consider it could meet Y’s needs. The Council needed to keep its Section 19 duty to arrange alternative provision of education for Y under review and act accordingly. The Council has failed to keep Y’s situation under review from March 2025 to the end of the academic year. The Council has provided no input to Y’s school or discussed Y further despite being aware of Y’s continued absence from school and the school’s input it did not consider it could meet Y’s needs. This was fault.
41. I cannot say, even on balance, whether the Council would have continued to decide it had no Section 19 duty to arrange alternative provision of education and that Y’s school was suitable and accessible. But, the Council’s fault caused a potential lost opportunity for Y and uncertainty for Mrs X.

Back to top

Action

42. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council should:
1. Reconsider whether it owes Y the Section 19 duty to arrange alternative provision of education, considering up-to-date information from the school and any professionals now working with Mrs X’s child, and tell Mrs X its decision about how it will support Y’s access to education.
2. Apologise to Mrs X and pay her £400 for the uncertainty caused to her and the potential lost opportunity caused to Mrs X’s child through its fault in failing to consider whether it needed to arrange alternative provision of education for Mrs X’s child from March 2025 to the end of the academic year. 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 the apology.
43. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

44. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman