Summary: We have found fault by the Council in failing to arrange suitable education for Y, failing to secure the provision in her EHC Plan, and in delays in securing a new placement and issuing an amended EHC Plan. These faults caused Y a significant loss of education. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to make suitable education provision for her daughter, Y, who has an Education, Health and Care Plan. Ms X says Y was out of school from June 2023 to November 2024 and only received limited online tuition. Ms X also says the Council placed Y in an unsuitable school despite her concerns, and that it took too long to identify and secure an appropriate placement. Ms X considers these failings have caused Y educational loss and emotional harm.

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. 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)
4. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
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

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Ms X and the Council were offered an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

EHC Plan 

8. A child or young person with special educational needs (SEN) may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this.

 Reviewing EHC Plans

9. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. The process is only complete when the council issues its decision to amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
10. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the Tribunal.
11. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.
12. If the child’s parents or the young person disagrees with the decision to cease the EHC Plan, the council must continue to maintain the EHC Plan until the time has passed for bringing an appeal, or when an appeal has been registered, until it is concluded.

Section 19 duty

13. 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.
14. If a child has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan the council also has an ongoing duty to arrange the support guaranteed by the Plan. However, this might not always be possible, such as where the SEN support is designed for the child’s normal classroom setting.

What happened

15. Y is a child with special educational needs and has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
16. In 2022, Y attended a mainstream school but was later excluded. The Council consulted a number of schools to identify a suitable placement. Following this process, School A was named in Y’s EHC Plan issued at the beginning of February 2023.
17. Y attended School A until June 2023. In June 2023, Ms X raised concerns about Y’s safety at the school. An annual review meeting took place in late June 2023, which was attended by a Council SEND Manager. Following this, the Council made referrals to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) and social care. The Council’s Education Safeguarding Lead visited the school in July 2023 to review the concerns. A further multi-agency meeting took place in August 2023. Y did not return to the school from September 2023.
18. From September 2023, the Council arranged alternative education provision for Y. This included tuition provided by Provider A from September 2023, initially around 10 hours per week. Additional provision was introduced during the period, including Provider B in November 2023, which ended after one session, and Provider C from January 2024, which provided mentoring support. From June 2024, Provider D was also included as part of Y’s provision. The provision continued in varying forms and hours until November 2024.
19. During this period, the Council consulted a number of schools to identify a new placement for Y. Between August 2023 and May 2024, several schools were consulted but did not offer a place. School B offered a placement in June 2024. Another school, School C, also offered a placement in August 2024. Ms X did not agree to these placements at that time and requested mediation.
20. An annual review of Y’s EHC Plan took place in December 2023. The Council issued a decision to amend the Plan later that month. A final amended EHC Plan was issued in mid-June 2024. Following mediation in October 2024, a further amended EHC Plan was issued in mid-October 2024.
21. Further consultations with schools took place in October 2024. Following discussions between the Council and Ms X, Y started at School D on 11 November 2024.
22. Y remains on roll at School D. An annual review took place in early-April 2025, and the Council issued a decision to amend the EHC Plan in May 2025.

Enquiries to the Council

23. As part of my investigation, I made enquiries to the Council. Of note, the Council said:
• It considers School A was a suitable placement for Y. It says this placement was identified following consultation with a large number of schools and was named in Y’s EHC Plan in February 2023.
• It said concerns about Y’s safety at School A were raised in June 2023. Following an annual review, it made referrals to safeguarding agencies and undertook further enquiries. It says Y did not return to the school from September 2023 and the placement was subsequently ended.
• It said it arranged alternative education provision for Y from September 2023 under its duties in section 19 of the Education Act 1996. This included tuition and additional support from different providers. It considers this provision was suitable and tailored to meet Y’s needs, including her special educational needs and mental health needs.
• It said professionals, including CAMHS and social care, were involved in supporting decisions about Y’s provision and the level of education she received.
• It said it consulted a number of schools to identify a new placement for Y. It says School B offered a place in June 2024 and School C offered a place in August 2024, but Ms X did not agree to these placements at that time. It says mediation took place in October 2024 before a placement at School D was agreed.
• It accepts there was a delay in issuing an amended EHC Plan following the annual review in December 2023, as the final plan was not issued until June 2024.
• It considers it provided suitable education while Y was out of school and does not accept fault in its actions. It has not proposed any further remedy.

Back to top

Analysis

The placement at School A

24. I have not investigated the Council’s original decision to name School A in Y’s EHC Plan. Decisions about the school named in an EHC Plan carry a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal. However, I can consider how the Council responded when concerns later arose about Y’s experience at the school and whether it acted properly once it became aware the placement may no longer be suitable.
25. Ms X says the Council placed Y in an unsuitable school despite her concerns. The Council says School A was a suitable placement when it was named in Y’s EHC Plan in February 2023. It says the placement followed consultation with a large number of schools and was accepted by Ms X after earlier Tribunal proceedings.
26. The evidence shows Ms X raised safeguarding concerns in June 2023. An annual review took place on 28 June 2023 and the Council says its SEND Manager attended. Following that meeting, the Council made referrals to the Local Authority Designated Officer and social care. The Council’s Education Safeguarding Lead visited the school in July 2023 and a further review meeting took place in August 2023. The Council says Y did not return to School A from September 2023 and the placement was then ended.
27. This indicates the Council accepted the concerns about Y’s placement were serious enough to require safeguarding action and that School A was no longer a suitable placement for her by the end of the summer term 2023. On the evidence available, once the concerns were formally raised, the Council did take steps to investigate them and review the placement. I have not seen evidence at this stage to show delay in the Council’s immediate safeguarding response after the concerns were raised in June 2023.
28. I am satisfied the Council took appropriate action once concerns were raised. It made safeguarding referrals, investigated the concerns and took steps to end the placement. I have not found fault in the Council’s actions in response to the concerns about Y’s placement at School A.

Y’s education after she stopped attending School A

29. Once Y stopped attending School A, the Council had a duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to arrange suitable education for her if she would not otherwise receive it. As Y had an EHC Plan, the Council also remained under a duty to secure the special educational provision set out in section F of that Plan.
30. The Council says it arranged alternative provision for Y from September 2023. This included tuition and support from a number of providers. It says this package was suitable and was tailored to meet Y’s educational, social communication, and mental health needs. It also says CAMHS and social care were involved in decisions about provision.
31. The evidence shows Y received a mixture of tuition, mentoring and support, but this was not a full-time education package. The Council refers to 10 hours per week tuition through Provider A from September 2023. The further provision through Providers C and D appears to have been delivered in blocks or in limited weekly hours. On the information I have seen, this amounted to less than full-time education for most, if not all, of the period Y was out of school.
32. Y’s EHC Plan set out detailed and specific provision to meet her needs. This included teaching in a small class setting, close adult support throughout the school day, structured support for her social communication and emotional regulation, and regular therapeutic input.
33. The Council has not demonstrated that the alternative provision it arranged delivered this level or type of support. While it arranged tuition and mentoring support, this was limited in hours and there is no clear evidence it replicated the structured, daily provision specified in section F of Y’s EHC Plan.
34. Councils should generally provide full-time education unless that would not be in the child’s interests. The Council says Y was struggling because of her experience at School A and refers to CAMHS and social care involvement. But its response does not clearly explain why it considered the reduced level of education was appropriate throughout this period, nor does it identify specific professional advice recommending Y should receive education on such a limited basis.
35. At this stage, the evidence suggests the Council did arrange some education and support for Y after she stopped attending School A. However, I am not satisfied the Council has shown this amounted to suitable education for the whole period, or that it fully discharged its duty to secure Y’s special educational provision while she was out of school.
36. I therefore find the Council did not arrange suitable education for Y while she was out of school and did not fully secure the special educational provision in her EHC Plan. This is fault. This meant Y missed out on a fully time education between September 2023 and November 2024, which is a substantial injustice given her age and special educational needs.

The Council’s efforts to secure a new placement

37. After Y stopped attending School A, the Council also needed to take steps to secure a new placement for her. The Council says it consulted a number of schools between August 2023 and October 2024. It has provided a list of schools consulted and the responses received. Most said they were unable to meet Y’s needs. School B offered a place in June 2024, and School C offered a place in August 2024. The Council says Ms X did not agree to these placements at that time and requested mediation. Y started School D in November 2024.
38. The evidence shows the Council was taking steps over this period to identify a replacement school. It is also relevant that suitable placements for children with Y’s needs can be difficult to source, and that there was not immediate parental agreement to the placements offered in mid-2024.
39. That said, Y was without a school placement from the end of the summer term 2023 until November 2024. This was a prolonged period. While some delay may have been outside the Council’s control, particularly where Ms X did not agree to placements offered in 2024, I must also consider whether the Council acted with sufficient urgency throughout.
40. It took until June 2024, around 11 to 12 months after Y stopped attending School A, for a placement to be offered. While the Council carried out consultations, it has not shown it took sufficiently timely or proactive steps to secure a placement earlier.
41. On balance, I find there was delay by the Council in securing a new placement for Y, particularly in the earlier part of the period after she left School A. This was fault. However, I also find Ms X’s lack of agreement to placements offered in 2024 contributed to the overall length of time Y was out of school.
42. The Council’s fault therefore accounts for part, but not all, of the delay. This added to the period during which Y did not have access to suitable education and contributed to the injustice identified above.

The EHC Plan process

43. The law requires councils to review and, where necessary, amend EHC Plans within set timescales. Following an annual review, councils should issue a final amended EHC Plan within 12 weeks.
44. An annual review of Y’s EHC Plan took place on 12 December 2023. The Council issued a decision to amend later that month and a draft amended Plan in January 2024. However, the final amended EHC Plan was not issued until 14 June 2024. The Council accepts this was outside the statutory timescale.
45. This delay was fault. Timely review and amendment of an EHC Plan is important to ensure the Council, parents and schools are working from an up-to-date understanding of the child’s needs and provision. It also ensures parents can exercise their right of appeal where necessary.
46. In this case, the delay meant there was not an up-to-date EHC Plan in place for several months. This caused uncertainty to Ms X and may have contributed to the delay in securing a suitable placement for Y.

Back to top

Action

47. The Ombudsman’s guidance says that where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, including the child’s special educational needs, whether any provision was made during the period, and any mitigating factors. We should also avoid double remedying the same injustice.
48. In this case, I have considered the period from September 2023 to November 2024, when Y was out of school after leaving School A and before starting School D. This covers Autumn 2023, Spring 2024, Summer 2024 and part of Autumn 2024, or about three and a half terms. During that period, the Council arranged some alternative provision. However, I have found that provision was less than full-time education and did not fully secure the special educational provision in Y’s EHC Plan. The injustice to Y was therefore not a complete loss of education, but a substantial loss of suitable education.
49. I have therefore placed this remedy towards the lower-middle of the Ombudsman’s range, of £1,200 per term This reflects that some provision was made, which is a mitigating factor, but that the provision fell well short of what the Council should have arranged and that the injustice continued for a lengthy period. It also reflects that part of the later delay in securing a new placement was not solely attributable to the Council.
50. Taking these factors into account, I recommend the Council pay £4,200 for the benefit of Y to acknowledge the loss of educational provision caused by the faults I have identified.
51. Therefore, to remedy in justice caused, the Council will:
1. Provide Ms X with a written apology for failing to arrange suitable education for Y, failing to secure the provision in her EHC Plan, and for delays in both securing a new placement and issuing the amended EHC Plan.
2. Pay Ms X £4,200 for the benefit of Y to acknowledge the loss of educational provision between September 2023 and November 2024.
3. the Council should review the faults identified in this case, particularly in relation to its duties to arrange suitable education for children out of school and to secure provision in EHC Plans, and set out what action it will take to prevent similar failings in future. It should provide us with a copy of this review.
52. The Council will complete actions a-b within one month of the Ombudsman's final decision, and action c within three months of the Ombudsman’s final decision.

Back to top

Decision

53. We found fault by the Council in failing to arrange suitable education for Y, failing to secure the provision in her EHC Plan, and in delays in securing a new placement and issuing an amended EHC Plan. These faults caused Y a significant loss of education. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman