Summary: We found the Council failed to provide a written and rationalised decision about whether it should provide Alternative Provision of education for Mr X’s child. This fault caused uncertainty to Mr X and his family. We also found fault with the Council delaying handling of Mr X’s complaint outside its complaint timescales causing frustration to Mr X. The Council agreed to apologise to Mr X and make a symbolic payment for the injustice caused to Mr X and his family.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide Alternative Provision of education for his child, when his child could not attend school, from September 2024 until the end of January 2025.
2. Mr X says because of the Council’s inaction this has impacted on his family’s mental, emotional, physical and financial wellbeing. Mr X says the situation had a particular impact on his child who was out of education.

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 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)
6. 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

7. Mr X complained about the time period September 2024 to the end of January 2025.
8. I have referred to some information and events before and after these dates but this was for contextual information to inform our findings. I have not made any findings on the Council’s actions outside this timescale but have used some of this information to inform the Council’s decision making for the relevant investigation period.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Mr 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

Rules and regulations

Section 19 duty

11. 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.

Establishing a section 19 duty

12. 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.
13. If a council wants to see medical or other evidence, it should ask for it at the earliest opportunity. The council should account for any challenges a parent might have in obtaining evidence, and review its position based on any new evidence it receives.
14. Councils should consider any attempts the school is making to support the child. This might involve sending work home for the child to complete, arranging disability related support, placing the child on a reduced timetable, or providing online education as a short-term measure. If there is a clear, effective, and time-bound plan for reintegration then there may be no immediate role for the council in providing alternative education.

Good practice guidance

15. We publish good practice guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to identify and arrange alternative educational provision: Supporting children out of school (October 2025)
16. Our guidance says that councils should:

• consider all the reasons for a child’s absence from school, and make a written evidence-based decision about whether it will arrange alternative education provision;
• communicate this decision as a matter of good practice to parents and where it decides not to arrange alternative education tell parents the expectations about school attendance, and the potential consequences for continued absences;
• ensure the provision meets the individual needs of the child where it decides to arrange alternative education and explain its reasons for providing a part-time education if it decides the child cannot cope with full time provision;
• keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing when the child is able;
• work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to their normal educational setting as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary; and
• ensure effective channels of communication between parents, internal teams, and external bodies (such as schools, and the NHS) so that issues are dealt with promptly by the right people, and that any complaints are identified and responded to under the relevant policy.

17. 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.

Council complaints process

18. The Council uses a two-stage complaints process. The Council says it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days from the date of receipt and try to respond at stage one within ten working days of the acknowledgement. The Council says in complex matters it may extend a stage one complaint response by ten working days and will advise a person if it needs to do this.
19. The Council says it will acknowledge a stage two complaint within five working days and aims to respond within twenty working days of the acknowledgement. The Council says in complex matters it may extend a stage two complaint response by twenty working days and will advise a person if it needs to do this.

What happened

20. In September 2024, Mr X’s child, Y, was attending a mainstream school. Y’s school had put in place adjustments to help with Y’s attendance.
21. The same month, Y’s school suspended Y for four days . Mr X contacted the Council to discuss Y’s suspension who redirected Mr X to the school to discuss support. The Council also spoke with Y’s school who outlined the full support it already had put in place. The Council says it decided reasonable and accessible education was available for Y because of these adjustments but made no written record of this decision.
22. After the end of Y’s suspension period, Mr X contacted the Council again to advise he would not be sending Y back to school. Mr X said he had sourced an Alternative Provision of education provider for Y. Mr X formally requested the Council to considers it Section 19 duty to provide education for Y who could not attend school. Mr X explained he had made an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan application but Y needed accessible education in the meantime.
23. In October 2024, Mr X provided a letter from Y’s doctor which said Y ‘cannot face attending school’ and Y’s ‘absence is explainable for a medical condition’ which was diagnosed. Mr X asked the school to hold a joint meeting with the Council about Y’s access to education. Mr X also told the Council he had started to pay for Alternative Provision of education for Y. Mr X said he had met with the school about reintegration but it had then not followed up on this meeting.
24. Y’s school held a meeting with Mr X and the Council in October 2024. Y’s school outlined its proposal of reintegration for Y through either a reduced hours timetable, referral to the Council for a placement at an Education Centre or twilight education hours. Mr X said he would need to discuss these options with Y before agreeing and would want to visit the Education Centre before agreeing to a placement. Mr X confirmed he was paying for Alternative Provision of education and Y had built a good rapport with the teachers. Y’s school said it would not fund this provision. Y’s school agreed to make a referral to the Council and Mr X agreed to discuss options with Y.
25. At the end of November 2024, Y’s school made a medical referral to the Council for Y. The Council rejected the application but did not provide a written decision of the rationale for its rejection.
26. In December 2024, Mr X contacted the Council about the medical referral. The Council told Mr X it had declined the medical referral because Y’s school had recorded Y’s absence as unauthorised.
27. The Council issued a Final EHC Plan for Y at the end of January 2025. The Council named Y’s current school in Section I. The Council included a Section F provision for 1:1 learning for English and Maths with familiar adults. In February 2025, the Council confirmed this provision was for Mr X’s chosen Alternative Provision of education provider he had put in place since October 2024. The Council said Y’s school was responsible for funding this from the date it produced the EHC Plan.
28. Mr X made a formal complaint to the Council on 25 February 2025 about the lack of education provided by the Council from October 2024 to the end of January 2025. The Council acknowledged the complaint on 27 February 2025. The Council promised a response within 20 working days.
29. The Council contacted Mr X and arranged a meeting to discuss his complaint. Following this meeting, the Council made enquiries of the school and updated Mr X about it waiting on this information before being able to provide a complaint response.
30. The Council provided a stage one complaint response on 25 March 2025. The Council said:
• It spoke with Y’s school about the education on offer.
• During the meeting in October 2024, Y’s school offered the Education Centre but Mr X wanted to visit first and it also offered a managed move which Mr X declined.
• When the school made a medical referral it declined this because the school had coded Y’s absence as unauthorised.
• It considered Y’s school implemented reasonable adjustments to support Y but did not feel Y fully engaged with these.
• It did not consider it had a duty under Section 19 and therefore did not consider it was responsible for covering the costs Mr X incurred while Y’s school explored other options.
31. Mr X sought consideration of his complaint at stage two on 7 April 2025. Mr X said:
• The measures put in place by Y’s school did not fulfil education and there was limited opportunity to put these in place before the school suspended Y.
• Y’s school needed to refer Y to the Education Centre before he could visit and the twilight education offer was not followed up on by the school after the meeting.
• He is financially out of pocket by £6,000 sourcing education for his child while Y was out of education.
32. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s complaint on the same date. The Council contacted Mr X to ask if it could arrange a meeting with him for 29 April 2025 which Mr X agreed to. On 29 April 2025, Mr X advised he could not attend the meeting and the Council rearranged this for 12 May 2025. Following the meeting, Mr X sought updates on his complaint response twice, which the Council responded to on the same working day in both instances. The Council did not tell Mr X it needed to engage the additional 20-working day extension allowed within stage two of its process.
33. On 5 June 2025, the Council provided its stage two complaint response. The Council said:
• It remained of the view Y’s school implemented reasonable adjustments to support Y to access education while it undertook an EHC Plan assessment of Y.
• It had considered its Section 19 duty and says this is only applicable when a child cannot receive suitable education at their current school.
• Because of the school’s offers of education through the Education Centre and twilight education along with the reasonable adjustments for Y, it considered the Section 19 duty was not necessary.

Analysis

Alternative provision of education

34. When Mr X first contacted the Council, Y’s absence would have been no longer than four days. The Council contacted Y’s school and discussed the adjustments it had in place for Y’s access to education. The Council took suitable steps to verify the education on offer and that reintegration for Y was available at the school. I do not find fault with the Council’s assessment of the situation.
35. However, by the start of October 2024, Y had been absent from school for more than 15 school days after Y failed to return following the end of the suspension. Mr X told both Y’s school and the Council that Y would not return to the school. The Council got relevant medical information, such as through a recent psychological assessment and doctors letter, provided by Mr X, and liaised with Y’s school. The Council held a meeting with Y’s school and Mr X to discuss Y’s access to education. The Council took suitable steps up to this meeting by getting input from the relevant people so it could make a decision on Y’s access to education; I do not find fault with this.
36. The Council has provided retrospective explanations about why it did not consider it should invoke its Section 19 duty for Y from September 2024 to the end of January 2025. The Council has included these within its complaint responses to Mr X and in its correspondence with the Ombudsman. However, the Council has no written evidence-based decision making during from September 2024 to the end of January 2025. This includes a failure to take ownership of any actions during or following the October 2024 meeting.
37. The Council has also only evidenced one instance in which it told Mr X it would not be providing alternative provision of education. This was specific to its decision to decline ‘medical’ provision because Y’s school coded Y’s absence as ‘unauthorised’. The Council did not consider Y’s access to education for being otherwise absent from school.
38. Overall, from October 2024 to the end of January 2025, the Council has no contemporaneous decision making about whether it should provide alternative provision for education while Y was otherwise absent from school. This was fault. This fault caused uncertainty to Mr X and his family rather than missed education. The Ombudsman looks to address uncertainty through apologises and symbolic payments to acknowledge the impact such uncertainty can have. These payments are symbolic in nature and cannot truly reflect the impact on a person.

Service improvements

39. The Council has already recognised its fault in failing to make written decisions before Mr X brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. The Council introduced an investigation and recommendation form into its process of deciding whether to provide Alternative Provision of education for children. This service improvement is aimed to ensure the Council keeps a written record of its decision making to prevent uncertainty. I do not consider the Council needs to make any further service improvements the address the fault.

Complaint handling

40. The Council acknowledged Mr X’s stage one complaint on 27 February 2025 which meant it had ten working days to provide a response, by 12 March 2025, in line with its standard timescales. However, within the acknowledgement the Council said it would provide a response within twenty working days, by 26 March 2025, and kept Mr X updated through a meeting and email about its progress. The Council provided a complaint response on 25 March 2025. The Council acted in line with the extended timescales allowed within its policy and I do not find fault.
41. At stage two, the Council acknowledged Mrs X’s complaint on 7 April 2025, which meant it had until 5 May 2025 to provide a response under its standard timescales. The Council had arranged a meeting with Mr X for 29 April 2025, which he could not attend, so this needed to be re-arranged for 12 May 2025. This effectively extended the Council’s complaint response time to 16 May 2025.
42. The Council provided a response on 5 June 2025 without formally advising Mr X it was extending its complaint response timescale by the twenty days allowed within its policy. Mr X also needed to chase the Council twice for updates between 12 May 2025 and 5 June 2025. The Council failed to meet its standard complaint responses timescales by 14 working days; this was fault. This delay would have caused Mr X frustration.

Back to top

Action

43. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council will:
• Provide an apology to Mr X for the uncertainty caused through its failure to suitability consider his child’s access to education from October 2024 to the end of January 2025 and for the frustration caused through the delays in handling his complaint. 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 I have recommended in my findings.
• Provide a symbolic payment to Mr X of £250 for the uncertainty caused through its failure to provide a written and rationalised decision about Y’s access to education from October 2024 to the end of January 2025.
44. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

45. 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