Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to secure enough alternative provision for her child, Y, and delayed completing their Education, Health and Care needs assessment. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed responding to her complaints. The Council was not at fault for its decision-making about Y’s alternative provision and reintegration to school. The Council was at fault for delaying its responses to Mrs X’s complaints. This caused Mrs X uncertainty and frustration. The Council should apologise to Mrs X.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council only secured one and half hours of alternative provision per day (seven and a half hours a week) for her child, Y, which she felt was not enough education. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed completing an Education, Health and Care needs assessment (EHCNA) of Y. Mrs X said the Council also did not respond to her emails and complaints in a timely manner or at all.
2. Mrs X said this caused her distress and frustration, and meant she spent hours per week emailing the Council. Mrs X and Y’s father took time off work to care for Y when they could not go to school. Mrs X wants the Council to answer her complaint and adhere to its timelines. Mrs X also wants the Council to provide the correct funding for Y’s provision and keep families informed of staff absences and changes. Mrs X would like the Council to compensate her for lost hours of work.

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. We also 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).
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(1), as amended).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. Mrs X complained to the Ombudsman in October 2024 that the Council delayed completing the Education, Health and Care needs assessment process (EHCNA) for Y. Mrs X also complained the Council delayed securing alternative provision for Y when they stopped going to school in September 2024. The previous investigation considered events up to November 2024. I have investigated events between November 2024 and July 2025.
7. The Ombudsman’s previous decision was issued in May 2025, and we found the Council was at fault for delaying completing the EHCNA for Y. The Council issued the draft Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan to Mrs X in early June 2025 and the final Plan a few weeks later. I have not investigated matters relating to delays finalising the EHC Plan, as the Council addressed these following the previous investigation.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Alternative provision

10. 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.
11. If the council decides it must arrange alternative provision, it needs to arrange provision based on the child’s individual needs. It should also have a review process to ensure the provision remains in the child’s best interests. Councils can decide a child cannot cope with full-time provision, especially where the reason for their non-attendance is medical. When this happens, the Council should provide reasons for the amount of provision it arranges.
12. Councils should also think about the steps needed to reintegrate the child back into their usual school setting, through ongoing conversations with relevant professionals and the parents.
13. The DfE guidance (Working together to improve school attendance) states all pupils of compulsory school age are entitled to a full-time education. In very exceptional circumstances there may be a need for a temporary part-time timetable to meet a pupil’s individual needs. For example, where a medical condition prevents a pupil from attending full-time education and a part-time timetable is considered as part of a re-integration package. A part-time timetable must not be treated as a long-term solution. 
14. The DfE guidance (Arranging education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs) states that some forms of provision, such as one-to-one provision, are more intensive and do not need to be full-time.

The Council’s alternative provision policy

15. The Council’s policy says it must provide suitable full-time education, or as much as a child’s health allows, for children of compulsory school age who would otherwise not receive a suitable education because of their health.
16. The Council’s policy says it should only use a part-time timetable for a child for the shortest time necessary, and it must not consider it a long-term solution. The Council must review the child’s progress towards returning to full-time education.

The Council’s complaints policy

17. The Council’s website says it will aim to respond to complaints within 10 working days. If the Council cannot respond within 10 working days, it will let the complainant know and explain why.

Background

18. Y has special educational needs (SEN) and in May 2024, Mrs X asked the Council to complete an EHCNA for Y. In July 2024, school A suspended Y following an incident. Y was put on a reduced timetable and then stopped attending school in September 2024. In October 2024, school A made a medical referral and asked the Council to support Y under section 19.
19. The Ombudsman’s previous investigation found the Council delayed completing Y’s EHCNA, which was a service failure. The investigation also found the Council was not at fault for a delay in securing alternative provision between September 2024 and November 2024.

What happened

20. School A held a meeting on 11 November 2024 with Mrs X and the alternative provision provider, the Provider, to discuss Y’s provision. During the meeting, Mrs X said Y did not want to go back to school A, and instead wanted to go back to their old school, school B. The Provider and Mrs X agreed Y would continue with the reduced timetable and receive seven and a half hours provision per week (one and a half hours per day) at home with a tutor. The Provider said this was short-term with a view to increasing the number of subjects for Y and reintegrating them into school B. At around this time, Mrs X asked for Y to start on three days provision in week one, as they had been out of education for several months. On week two, the Council increased this to four sessions and on week three, it increased the provision to five sessions.
21. The Council continued Y’s provision at home during December 2024 and January 2025. In late January 2025, school A held a review meeting with Mrs X and the Provider. Mrs X said Y’s tutoring was working well and the Provider said it hoped to support Y to move to school B. The Council began reintegration work with Y in February 2025, including a virtual tour of school B and a supported visit to the school and classroom. The Council also created a SEN support plan for Y, which said Y’s reduced timetable was working well.
22. The Council continued Y’s integration work in March 2024, including Y meeting school friends and spending time in the classroom. Mrs X complained to the Council on 21 March 2025, saying the Council had failed to provide Y with a full-time education, as it had only secured seven and a half hours of education a week.
23. In or around late March 2025, Y began attending school B on a part-time timetable of seven and a half hours per week. In April 2025, the Council said Y was spending over 20 minutes in the classroom at a time with support from the Provider.
24. Mrs X complained to the Council again on 7 May 2025, as she said the Council had not responded to her previous complaint. On 14 May 2025, school B held a review meeting with Mrs X. The school said Y was doing well and it would extend one of their school days to two hours as the next step of reintegration. This meant Y’s hours increased to eight and half per week, including longer periods in the classroom at school.
25. On 4 June 2025, the Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It did not uphold Mrs X’s complaint about Y not receiving enough alternative provision. Mrs X remained unhappy and complained to the Ombudsman.
26. The Council increased Y’s provision to nine hours per week in June 2025. The Council said Y seemed calmer at school and had coping strategies in place. The Council finalised Y’s EHC Plan in June 2025 and named school B as Y’s setting. The Provider stopped supporting Y in July 2025 and competed a handover to the school.

My findings

Y’s alternative provision

27. The law says when a Council decides to arrange alternative provision for a child, it must base this on the child’s needs. This includes considering whether the child should have a full-time or part-time timetable. The law also says Councils should review the provision and have a plan to reintegrate the child into full-time education.
28. The Council decided that Y needed alternative provision and a part-time timetable after receiving a medical referral from school A. The Council said in November 2024 that this would be a short-term piece of work with an aim to reintegrate Y into school. The Council then reviewed Y’s provision and progress at least monthly between November 2024 and July 2025. The Council decided to gradually increase Y’s hours of education based on information from Mrs X, Y’s schools and the Provider. The Council also gradually reintegrated Y into the school environment. Its actions are in line with the law and the DfE guidance set out in paragraphs 10 to 13.
29. 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.
30. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider the issue, and the information it took account of when deciding how much provision it should secure for Y. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.

Council’s complaint handling

31. Mrs X complained to the Council on 21 March 2025 and again on 7 May 2025 after she received no reply. The Council’s complaints policy states it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint on 4 June 2025, which is around 50 working days after she first complained. This was fault. It caused Mrs X uncertainty and frustration and meant she spent time making the complaint again.

Back to top

Action

32. Within one month of the final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X for the uncertainty and frustration caused by its delayed response to her complaint. 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.
33. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has agreed to remedy.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman