Summary: Mrs X complains on behalf of Miss Y that the Council did not deal properly with education causing avoidable distress. The Council failed to communicate properly, did not provide alternative education, did not communicate outcomes about services and did not respond to the complaint fully. Mrs X suffered avoidable distress. The Council should apologise, make a symbolic payment to Miss Y and provide guidance to staff.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Mrs X, complains on behalf of Miss Y that the Council failed to deal with her education properly because:
• It failed to facilitate communication with officers as promised.
• Miss Y was taken off roll from school.
• It failed to provide s19 alternative education for Miss Y between April and November 2024.
• It failed to assign a Young Persons Worker (YPW).
• It failed to make Friend and Family Networks referral.
• It failed to provide careers advice.
• Its complaint handling was poor as it hasn’t responded to all the issues including safeguarding and a laptop computer.
2. Mrs X says Miss Y suffered avoidable distress and loss of educational opportunity, missed services and wasn’t able to attend her school prom.

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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
5. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
6. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.
7. 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’.
8. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
9. 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)
10. 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

11. I have investigated that part of Mrs X’s complaint about how the Council has dealt with Miss Y’s education.
12. I have not investigated that part of Mrs X’s complaint about Miss Y being taken off roll by her school because this is a school matter which is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, and the claimed injustice is insufficient to justify investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Mrs 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

Law, guidance and policies

15. 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.
16. If a council discovers a child is absent from school for an extended period, it should consider the reasons for this, and take account of evidence from relevant parties (such as the child’s school, parents, and medical professionals). It must then decide whether it has a duty to make alternative educational provision.
17. If the council decides it must arrange alternative provision, it needs to arrange provision based on the child’s individual needs.
18. Councils also have some flexibility with regard to the time taken to set up alternative provision. However, they must make provision from the sixth day in exclusion cases, and they should do so in medical cases where it is clear the absence is for more than 15 school days.

What happened?

19. This is a brief chronology of key events. It does not contain everything I reviewed during my investigation.
20. Miss Y stopped attending school in April 2024.
21. The Council met with Miss Y at home in July 2024 to make a plan on how to make alternative provision for her education.
22. Miss Y’s mother made complaints to the Council in May 2024 and December 2024 about failures of services including alternative education provision, and a delayed Education Health and Care Needs Assessment.
23. Miss Y’s mother accepted remedies in respect of the substantive issues raised in her complaints. She did not accept a proposed remedy in respect of avoidable distress caused to Miss Y.
24. In January 2025 Mrs X complained to the Council on behalf of Miss Y about the impact of these matters on Miss Y. The Council partially upheld Mrs X’s complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process.
25. Mrs X was unhappy with the stage 1 complaint response and escalated her complaint to stage 2. The Council declined to consider the complaint further.

Analysis

26. As many substantive matters have been addressed in other complaints, my investigation is concerned with how these matters affected Miss Y personally.
27. In its stage 1 complaint response the Council said:
• It apologised for a member of staff not being contactable on the number provided. I agree this was fault by the Council. Miss Y suffered avoidable distress.
• It apologised for tuition not being provided. I agree this was fault by the Council. Miss Y suffered avoidable distress.
• It had been unable to clarify when Miss Y would be assigned a YPW.
• It apologised for the Friends and Networks provision was unable to take a referral for Miss Y.
• Careers advice should have been available through its Alternative Tuition Service (ATS).
• It offered Miss Y £400 in recognition of avoidable distress caused to her.

Delay to s19 education provision

28. Miss Y’s complaint included specific reference to the period April to July 2024.
29. I have listened to a recording of a telephone call between Mrs X and the Council. The Council accepted the complaint about delayed alternative education between April and July was made and it should be responded to.
30. In a separate complaint, the Council had already accepted fault in respect of a delay in providing alternative provision from September 2024. It proposed a financial remedy which was accepted. I have therefore not re-investigated this.
31. The Council did not include any specific reference to delays to alternative provision between April to July 2024 in Miss Y’s complaint response. It did say it was, “…sorry that the tuition did not start and the referrals were not undertaken as promptly as we – or you – would have liked.”
32. The Council told the Ombudsman it became aware Miss Y was not attending school on 18 June 2024.
33. I have seen email evidence that shows the Council was aware from mid May that Miss Y was not attending school and had said it was able to support with some tuition. It said it would send a workpack out so the tutor could assess Miss Y. This workpack was misdelivered by a Council offer and not made available until after a meeting on the 30th May 2024.
34. The Council made the referral to its Alternative Tuition Service (ATS) on 18 June 2024, nearly three weeks later.
35. I have seen emails from Mrs X to the Council saying Miss Y’s school had not provided work during this time.
36. On the balance of probabilities, the Council delayed making arrangements for s19 alternative education to Miss Y. This is fault by the Council. The Council should have arranged provision by the middle of May2024. Miss Y suffered approximately half a term’s delay to the arrangement of tuition.

Young Persons Worker

37. In its response to my enquiries the Council said:
• a referral for a YPW was not made by Education Access because an Adolescent Early Help Assessment was not raised and accepted, and it was explained this was because Miss Y was not in Year 11 or 12
• its Family Services Team (now Statutory SEND Services) sent an email in August 2024 which said a YPW referral had been made and they would chase this.
38. The Council has provided email communications which show the Council followed up this referral, considered Miss Y’s circumstances and made the decision it would not be able provide her with a YPW. This is not fault by the Council.
39. The Council did not communicate this decision to Miss Y. This is fault by the Council. The Council raised expectations of service delivery and then failed to communicate the reasons why it would not be able to do so. Miss Y suffered avoidable distress and uncertainty.

Friends and Family Networks (FaN)

40. It its response to my enquiries the Council said:
• Referrals to Friends and Networks ended in October 2024 as it was a time-limited and limited funded project. The funding eventually fully ended in March 2025; this was a DFE project.
• it did not communicate the complexities of the time-limited nature of the FaN project to Miss Y, as it felt superfluous to the nature of the issue raised.
41. The Council could have referred Miss Y to FaN between July 2024 and October 2024. The Council has not provided evidence that a referral was made to FaN. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, it did not do so, despite telling Miss Y it might be a good fit for her.
42. The Council did not communicate this to Miss Y. This is fault by the Council. The Council raised expectations of service delivery and then failed to communicate the reasons why it would not be able to do so. Miss Y suffered avoidable distress and uncertainty.

Careers Advice

43. In its response to my enquiries, the Council said:
• “The ATS does offer careers advice as part of their service for children that aren’t on roll at a school.”
• “The Council maintains that the ATS was there for Miss Y to engage with, but she chose not to fully utilise their service. In respect of the careers advice, Miss Y would not have had access to this through ATS as she remained on roll at school. There was no conversation has with Miss Y around this due to her lack of engagement with the ATS itself.”
• It “recognises that the initial response was inaccurate and did not provide the context that the ATS provides career advice to children who are not on roll only”
44. The Council did not communicate the correct availability of careers services to Miss Y after the July 2024 meeting or in its complaint response. It should have done so. This is fault by the Council. The Council raised expectations of service delivery and then failed to communicate the reasons why it would not be able to do so. Miss Y suffered avoidable distress and uncertainty.

Complaint Handling

45. The Council’s stage 1 complaint response did not communicate sufficient available detail to Miss Y to explain why a YPW and FaN were not made available to her. The response was vague and unspecific. It should have provided a significantly more detailed response to these elements of Miss Y’s complaint. This is fault by the Council. Miss Y suffered avoidable distress and uncertainty.
46. Mrs X and Miss Y provided additional detail relating to the YPW and raised a further issue about problems providing a laptop in their stage 2 complaint.
47. The Council declined to consider the complaint further. It should have provided a stage 2 complaint response. This is fault by the Council. Miss Y suffered uncertainty and did not have her complaint fully responded to.

Conclusion

48. In its stage 1 complaint response the Council offered Miss Y a payment of £400 in respect of avoidable distress.
49. I have found further fault than accepted by the Council when it offered Miss Y £400. Consequently, I do not consider that to be an appropriate remedy.

Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies

50. Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The figure should be based on the impact on the child and take account of factors such as:
• the child’s special educational needs;
• any educational provision – full-time or part-time, without some or all of the specified support – that was made during the period; and
• whether additional provision can now remedy some or all of the loss.
51. The symbolic payment is intended to remedy injustice caused to the child from missing provision, as well as the normal range of consequential injustice also caused to the family due to  this fault, for example; the additional caring responsibilities that occur from a child being out of education and avoidable disruption to daily routine.
52. I have considered all the information available to me about Miss Y, including that provided by Mrs X, when deciding on an appropriate remedy.

Back to top

Action

53. To remedy the outstanding injustice caused by the fault I have identified, the Council should take the following action within 4 weeks of my final decision:
• Apologise for the fault found. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Miss Y £600 in respect of the delay to alternative tuition being arranged.
• Pay Miss Y £500 in respect of avoidable distress.
• Provide guidance to staff to ensure that complaints are fully responded to.
54. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman