Summary: The Council arranged an alternative education for Y that met their needs and kept this provision under review. The Council issued Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan within the statutory timescales and secured the provision in the Plan when Y was well enough to participate. The Council was not at fault.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to arrange an alternative education for his child, Y, when they became too unwell to attend school. He also complained the Council failed to secure the content of Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan from April 2025. Mr X says this has caused his family severe distress and meant Y has missed out their full education as a result. Mr X wants the Council to provide Y with a full-time education, secure the full content of Y’s EHC Plan, apologise and compensate him for the impact of its failings.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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. 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.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

Late complaints

5. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
6. Mr X received a stage one complaint response from the Council in November 2024 but did not escalate his complaint to stage two. Mr X took no further action on his complaint until complaining to the Ombudsman in June 2025. I have not investigated events before June 2024. It was open to Mr X to complain to us sooner about events before that date and I consider it was reasonable for him to have done so.

Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Tribunal

7. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
8. There is a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal against a council’s:

• decision not to carry out an EHC needs assessment or reassessment;
• decision that it is not necessary to issue a EHC Plan following an assessment;
• description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified in their EHC Plan;
• amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan;
• decision not to amend an EHC Plan following a review or reassessment; and
• decision to cease to maintain an EHC Plan.

9. I have not investigated the parts of Mr X’s complaint that were appealable to the SEND Tribunal. Mr X could have appealed to the Tribunal about the Council’s decision not to assess Y and the provision specified in Y’s EHC Plan.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

The Law

Alternative provision

12. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that a council 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.
13. 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.
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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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)
19. 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 within 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.

20. 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.
21. The Government 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. 

Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans

22. A child or young person with special educational needs 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. 
23. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’) sets out the process for carrying out EHC assessments and producing EHC Plans. The guidance is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014. It says the following: 

• Where the council receives a request for an EHC needs assessment it must decide whether to agree to the assessment and send its decision to the parent of the child or the young person within six weeks. 
• If the council decides not to conduct an EHC needs assessment it must give the child’s parent or young person information about their right to appeal to the Tribunal.
• The process of assessing needs and developing EHC Plans “must be carried out in a timely manner”. Steps must be completed as soon as practicable. 
• If the council goes on to carry out an assessment, it must decide whether to issue an EHC Plan or refuse to issue a Plan within 16 weeks.
• If the council goes on to issue an EHC Plan, the whole process from the point when an assessment is requested until the final EHC Plan is issued must take no more than 20 weeks

24. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
25. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time.

Background

26. Mr X’s child Y’s attendance at school A began to decline in early 2023, due to illness. Y’s school placed Y on a reduced timetable. By September 2023 Y was either absent most days or attending part of a day before leaving. A school medical plan for April 2024 detailed measures the school was taking to try and allow Y to attend as much as possible.
27. By June 2024 Y had received a provisional diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome. Y’s attendance for the academic year 2023/24 was 41%.

What happened

28. Y’s diagnosis was confirmed in September 2024. Mr X requested an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment of Y on 14 September 2024. A few days later Y’s school asked the Council for medical support for Y. The request detailed the efforts the school had taken over the previous years to provide Y with an education. At the same time the school sent the Council an official notification of Y being on a reduced timetable.
29. The Council considered Y’s case at its next medical support panel, on 1 October 2024. It agreed a short-term placement at a hospital school, school B. It said Y would have a dual placement and be on the roll at both school A and school B. It said school A should work closely with school B to deliver alternative provision to Y.
30. A profile of Y’s needs to access education was completed on 10 October 2024. Mr X confirmed Y had access to a laptop at home to access virtual lessons. School B confirmed Y had access to read and write software if needed. The Council says Y preferred to use pen and paper in sessions.
31. The Council rejected Mr X’s application for an EHC needs assessment of Y on 23 October 2024 and offered Mr X a right of appeal to the SEND Tribunal.
32. School B began delivering online tuition for Y on 11 November 2024. Y’s initial timetable involved one-hour lessons in Maths, English and Science comprising 20 minutes teaching, 20 minutes rest and 20 minutes teaching. Y’s total timetabled online teaching time was seven hours a week. The timetable also included one hour a week of Art classes. It is not clear from the timetable if these took place.
33. Mr X complained to the Council on 14 November 2024. He said he had recently discovered the Council had a duty to provide Y with an education where they were unable to attend school due to illness. He said the Council had failed to do this. He said while he was satisfied with the provision now in place from school B, it should have been in place sooner.
34. The Council responded on 27 November 2024. It said school A had referred Y to its medical support panel in September 2024, it considered this referral at its next panel and made arrangements for Y to receive tuition from school B. It did not uphold Mr X’s complaint.
35. On 20 January 2025 the Council agreed to carry out an EHC needs assessment of Y. An updated timetable from school B in February 2025 shows that Y’s Art classes had not yet started but the seven hours a week tuition in Maths, English and Science remained in place.
36. An Educational Psychologist (EP) completed a report for Y’s EHC needs assessment on 14 February 2025. They noted that Y was currently unable to attend school due to illness. The Council issued a draft EHC Plan on 20 March 2025, inviting comments from Mr X.
37. In April 2025 the Council refused a personal budget request from Mr X. Mr X appealed the decision. He said school A and school B could not provide Y with their optional subjects, Art, Music or PE. He also said Y needed a laptop for their studies and to access GCSE exams. The Council refused the appeal. It said Y’s schools could meet Y’s needs and provide Y with an education.
38. The Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan on 25 April 2025. Provision in the EHC Plan included:
• 17 hours of 1:1 tuition a week, including 2 hours a week with a key adult providing personalised support.
• Learning opportunities in subjects such as English, Maths, Science, Art, Music and PE
• A laptop equipped with voice-to-text recognition
• Access to support within the wider community to support Y’s mental health
39. School B carried out a review of Y’s education in May 2025. In the review Mr X reiterated that neither school could provide Y with their optional subjects. Y’s tutors reported that Y was doing well in the core subjects they were delivering.
40. Throughout May and June Mr X continued to chase the Council to provide Y with the optional subjects. The Council met with school B at the start of June to discuss whether they could offer these. The Council’s records show school B said it could deliver Art classes.
41. At the end of June, the Council considered a request to provide additional funding for school A to provide the optional subjects for Y. The Council rejected the application. It said these were already delivered by school A as part of the national curriculum. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman.
42. In July 2025 the Council discussed Y’s progress with school B and asked it to monitor Y’s progress with a view to Y being able to attend school A and access the full curriculum. The council’s records show that Y had been unable to attend PE when attending school A and that school B said it could not deliver GCSE Music, Art and PE to Y as Y was behind in these subjects. The meeting discussed a plan for Y to build up to attending school A once a week to receive these lessons when well enough. The Council also discussed Y’s case with its Designated Clinical Officer (DCO). The DCO agreed Y’s provision was in line with their diagnosis.
43. At the end of July 2025, the Ombudsman referred Mr X’s complaint to the Council for a final response. Mr X maintained the Council had delayed providing Y with a suitable alternative education and that Y’s current provision did not allow for Y to pursue their optional GCSE subjects. He said this provision was also specified in Y’s EHC Plan and the Council had failed to secure it.
44. The Council responded on 5 August 2025. It detailed the steps it had taken to deliver a suitable alternative education for Y, while being mindful of Y’s health and ability to engage with their education. It said Y had been unable to access any extended curriculum due to their medical needs. It said an action plan had been formed to ensure it secured the provision in Y’s EHC Plan. It said there was no evidence the Council had not delivered what was required.
45. Mr X responded to the Council. He said the Council was under a duty to secure the provision in section F and had not. He said Y had only received an education in Maths, English and Science and had delayed providing that. He said school B could not deliver Y’s optional subjects. Mr X also complained to the Ombudsman at this time.
46. Y started a new timetable in September 2025. This continued Y’s lessons in Maths, English and Science and added in a weekly session from the professional support and wellbeing service to focus on wider community activities and social time.
47. The Council sent Mr X a final complaint response on 10 September 2025. It repeated that it was under a duty to secure the provision in section F of the EHC Plan from 25 April 2025. It said it had done so but Y had been unable to participate due to their health. It said it could not use Y’s existing tutors for Y’s optional subjects as these were not used by school B.
48. The Council carried out Y’s annual review in October 2025. At the review Y reported that they could still not concentrate for a full hour and needed breaks in the middle of lessons. They said they could not manage more than three lessons a day and they could not study enough of the curriculum to complete their GCSE tests this year. A letter from an Occupational Therapist working with Y said Y’s illness had significantly impaired Y’s ability to engage in sustained activity and consistent school attendance had become impossible. They said ongoing attendance at school B provided reasonable and proportionate access to education for Y.
49. In response to our enquiries the Council said Mr X withdrew consent for the Council to discuss Y’s education with professionals on 22 September 2025. It said this impacted its ability to monitor the suitability of Y’s alternative provision and secure section F of the EHC Plan from this date. The Council said it has had to rely on information from before this date and from Y’s most recent annual review to inform its approach.

My findings

Y’s alternative provision

50. School A asked the Council for medical support for Y in September 2024. The Council considered that request and put alternative provision in place at school B from November 2024. The part time provision put in place at the time reflected what Y could cope with. The Council put alternative provision in place as soon as possible after it became aware it needed to do so. It was provision that met Y’s individual needs at the time. The Council was not at fault.
51. Y has continued to receive alternative provision at school B. Mr X complains the Council has failed to review Y’s timetable during this time, to increase Y’s timetable and include optional GCSE subjects. Y’s timetable was reviewed in February 2025. Around the same time the EP noted Y was unable to attend school due to illness. Over the next few months, the Council explored whether school A or B could deliver the optional subjects for Y. The evidence shows to receive these subjects Y would need to attend school A and was not medically capable of doing so. The Council’s DCO confirmed Y’s timetable was suitable for their diagnosis, while the October 2025 annual review confirmed that Y could not cope with an increased curriculum.
52. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes the Council followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong.
53. I have considered the steps the Council took, and the information it took account of when deciding what alternative provision Y was capable of. The Council explored options and considered professional opinion. There is no fault in how it took the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong. The Council was not at fault.

Y’s EHC Plan application

54. The Council was entitled to refuse Mr X’s initial request for an EHC needs assessment of Y. It did so within the statutory timescale of six weeks and offered Mr X a right of appeal against its decision. The Council was not at fault.
55. The Council agreed to assess Y on 20 January 2025 and had 14 weeks to issue Y’s final EHC Plan. The Council issued the final EHC Plan on 25 April 2025, within the statutory timescale. The Council again gave Mr X the right of appeal over the EHC Plan. The Council was not at fault.

Y EHC Plan provision

56. The Council’s duty is to secure the provision in Y’s EHC Plan, ensuring the provision is available to Y. Y has not received the entirety of the provision in their EHC Plan since April 2025. However, this is not because the provision is not available, but because of Y’s inability to engage with the provision due to illness.
57. The evidence shows Y’s optional subjects, and increased 1:1 support, remain available when Y is well enough to participate in these subjects. The Council did not provide Y with a laptop as Mr X said Y already had access to one, and the Council introduced support to access the community when it felt Y was ready to engage in these activities. On balance, I am satisfied the Council secured the provision in Y’s EHC Plan from April 2025.
58. Mr X says the Council should have agreed to a personal budget, for him to secure the provision with external providers more familiar to Y. The Council was entitled to refuse this request and secure Y’s EHC Provision through Y’s schools. Y’s EHC Plan did not specify external providers for Y’s optional GCSE’s and the Council was under no duty to use these. The Council was not at fault.
59. The Council has since issued an amended EHC Plan in January 2026. Mr X has a right of appeal over the provision in the EHC Plan. It is open to Mr X to make a new complaint if he considers the Council has not secured the provision in Y’s new EHC Plan.

Back to top

Decision

60. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman