Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s son while he has been out of school. Investigation would not lead to a different outcome and is not therefore warranted.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains that the Council has failed to make appropriate alternative provision for her son since he was permanently excluded from school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X’s son was permanently excluded from school in February 2025. Ms X complains that the Council has failed to discharge its duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to make alternative provision for him.
6. In response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council has accepted that its section 19 duty is engaged. It says that it normally makes such provision at an Alternative Provision Academy (APA) but was unable to do so for Ms X’s son between February and April 2025. It has offered to pay Ms X £900 in recognition of the period of missed education.
7. The Council says a place at an APA became available for Ms X’s son from April 2025. Ms X says the offer is not appropriate. She says the school is not suitable for her son, given his special educational needs and need for one-to-one support.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. Our intervention would not lead to a different outcome. The Council has accepted that it had a section 19 duty to make alternative provision following the permanent exclusion and that it did not initially do so. The offer of £900 is broadly in line with what the Ombudsman would recommend in these circumstances, so our intervention is not warranted.
9. We can take no view on whether the APA is suitable for Ms X’s son. Without an Education Health and Care plan in place, the Council does not have to make specialist provision available and the Ombudsman will not criticise it for failing to do so. We cannot therefore find that the Council has been at fault from April 2025 and there are no grounds for us to investigate

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman