Summary: Mr F complained about the Council’s handling of his son’s (Y) education since late 2023 when he was unable to attend his school placement, and delays in its Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan process. The Council accepted fault and proposed a remedy for its failure to arrange education as agreed for Y in September 2024 and causing delays in the EHC plan process. We found some additional fault by the Council for which it agreed to apologise and pay an increased remedy to acknowledge the injustice its faults caused Mr F and Y.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr F, complained about the Council’s handling of his son’s (Y) education since late 2023. He said it:
• wrongly put pressure on him for Y to attend his school placement in late 2023 despite his concerns about the impact this would have on Y;
• failed to provide suitable and accessible alternative provision when Y struggled to, or were unable to, attend his school placement from September 2023 to July 2024;
• caused delays in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan process and issued a poor drafted plan in Summer 2024 which did not reflect parental and professionals views; and
• failed to provide suitable and accessible Education Other Than At School (EOTAS) provision as agreed from September 2024 until May 2025, and failed to properly consider parental and professional advice in the process.
2. Mr F said, as a result, Y experienced a loss of education and the family experienced distress and uncertainty.

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. 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. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. 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)
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. 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.
9. 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

10. I have investigated the Council’s handling of Mr F’s concerns about Y’s education from November 2023 until May 2025. This includes its handling of alternative provision, the EHC plan process, and EOTAS provision after Y’s plan was issued. While parts of Mr F’s complaint are late, I have found it appropriate to exercise my discretion to include this period in my investigation.
11. I have not investigated Mr F’s concerns about:
• The education Y received, or issues around school exclusions, prior to November 2023. This is because these matters were not brought to our attention within 12 months of the events occurring, and I have not seen good reasons to exercise my discretion. In addition, the concerns related to what happened in a school which we cannot investigate; or
• Any disagreement Mr F may have about the provision or content of Y’s EHC plan issued in July 2024. This is because such matters carried appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Mr F and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
14. 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 found

Relevant law and guidance

Education, Health and Care needs assessments

15. 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.
• 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 (unless certain specific circumstances apply);
• Councils must give the child’s parent or the young person 15 days to comment on a draft EHC Plan and express a preference for an educational placement.

Education, Health and Care plans

16. 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.
17. 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)
18. 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.

Alternative Provision

19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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)
27. 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.

28. 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’s complaints policy

29. The Council’s policy sets out how it will handle complaints. It will:
• Initially consider complaints as a representation and acknowledge receipt within two working days. This is to have the opportunity to resolve issues before treating a concern as a complaint. It will respond within 20 working days;
• acknowledge stage one complaints within two working days, if the matter remains unresolved. A response will be provided within 20 working days; and
• consider a request for a stage two review if a complainant remains dissatisfied. A complaints manager will respond within 10 working days. If the request is accepted, it will provide its final response within 25 working days.

What happened

30. I have set out a brief summary of the events which occurred. This is not intended to be a detailed description of everything that happened.
31. Mr F’s son (Y) has since at least September 2023 struggled with attending his school placement and has had behavioural issues in school which has led to exclusions. The Council’s inclusion service was involved, and a risk assessment had been completed for Y’s attendance at school. Mr F had disagreed with the suitability of the school for some time, and the Council had restricted his communication due to what it deemed unreasonable behaviour by Mr F.
32. By November 2023 Y’s attendance was limited. The school had put in place support for Y which included access to its special educational needs hub and 1:1 support. It was the view of the Council and the school that Y’s needs could be met in school. A reduced timetable was in place at the time. The Council had provided the school with some additional funding to support the arrangements.
33. The Council told Mr F it expected Y to attend school in line with the reduced timetable and complete the work the school had provided at home. Mr F disagreed the school was suitable for Y, which was why he had agreed to Y attending part time. He said Y should receive tutoring in the home.
34. In December 2023:
• Mr F told the school he would not send Y to school as he did not believe this was safe for him due to incidents in school and his prolonged struggles. He also said Y could not engage with online learning and the school agreed with this;
• Mr F asked the Council to complete an EHC needs assessment for Y in December 2023;
• The school agreed Y needed mental health support. In response, the Council provided advice and said Y’s absence should therefore be marked as ill. It also said an urgent referral to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and social care should be made. This was subsequently done and the family started to receive some social care support;
• the school asked the Council to consider its alternative provision request for Y, when he had been marked as absent due to illness for 15 days.
35. In January 2024 the Council considered Y’s case. This was as part of a multi-agency team of professionals involved with the family and Y’s circumstances. Mr F said at the time Y could not engage in any education until support for his mental health was in place. No further educational provision was therefore arranged for Y.
36. Further Multi agency meetings took place in February and March 2024. It was acknowledged Y was not receiving an education, but a social care assessment was underway and CAMHS support was due to start.
37. In March 2024 Mr F told the Council Y’s needs would not change. He said it should provide alternative provision for him. The school submitted a referral, and a multi-agency meeting was scheduled.
38. By April 2024 the Council and involved professionals found Y was too unwell to access education in school. It agreed alternative provision should be provided.
39. The Council said:
• A mentor was arranged through social care to support Y’s mental health for 12 weeks. This was in addition to the family support in place;
• it arranged online alternative provision though through an education provider. It said Y could get support from the mentor and the social care provision to help with access the available online provision through extended support. It also confirmed with the school a laptop was available to Y;
• it arranged for the school to review the alternative provision arrangement before the end of the academic year. It said in line with its policy, Attendance and Section 19 of the Education Act (1996) Gloucestershire County Council Policy and Process’ this was the school’s responsibility; and
• it had found the provision available to Y to be suitable, it was not under a further duty to provide other alternative provision for Y. This was despite Y not accessing any of his available education up to July 2024.
40. Mr F disputes any online provision was arranged or received. He also said such provision was not suitable for Y and he had repeatedly shared his view.
41. Y’s school said it was unaware of any arrangement with an online alternative provision provider. In addition, both Y’s mentor and the social care support confirmed they did not support Y with his education or accessing any alternative provision.
42. In June 2024 the Council shared a draft EHC plan for Y with Mr F. He complained to the Council about the standard of the draft plan. He said it had mistakes, omissions, and were poorly drafted. He also commented on provision and wanted EOTAS listed in the plan.
43. The Council allocated a new officer to the process for Y’s EHC plan, who confirmed she would review the plan and make amendments to the draft. In response to Mr F’s complaint, it acknowledged its draft EHC plan for Y could have had more detail and its assessment had not gathered all the available information. However, it explained the process allowed for Mr F to comment and the Council to make changes.
44. Mr F escalated his complaint about the Council’s poor draft EHC plan. He said the plan would have put Y at risk and cause harm. The Council acknowledged Mr F’s request.
45. The Council subsequently shared a further draft plan, followed by Y’s final amended EHC plan in July 2024. The Council agreed Y should receive an EOTAS package.
46. In August 2024 Mr F made further comments on his complaint, which included his dissatisfaction with the same officer being put in charge of Y’s EOTAS package, poor communication, and contents in the plan. The Council acknowledged and explained it would respond but the timescales in its Complaints policy would apply from the date the further information had been received.
47. In September 2024 the Council provided it stage two complaint response. It partially upheld Mr F’s complaint and apologised. This was its initial draft EHC plan had not met the quality standards it would expect as its assessment had not gathered all the relevant information, and some communication had not been responded to as timely as it should have. However, it did not agree:
• Y had been in any danger or risk as a result of the initial draft EHC plan;
• it was inappropriate for the officer to coordinate Y’s EOTAS package with oversight by a manager;
• to include some provision Mr F wanted in Y’s EHC plan, but it agreed to reconsider this.
48. It shared the steps it had taken to improve the quality and timeliness of its EHC needs assessment process. It also said it now had a single point of contact for Mr F but at times it may not be possible to respond to communication in line with its published timescales due to staff absences.
49. The Council sought providers for Y’s EOTAS package at the start of the 2024/2025 academic year. However, it was not until early 2025 an agreement was in place with a provider, which first started in February 2025. This provision subsequently broke down after only a few days.
50. In March 2025 the Council agreed to provide a personal budget for Y. Part of the budget was arranged in March and fully in place in May 2025. Y’s personal budget was backdated to March 2025 and paid to Mr F to arrange the provision.
51. In 2025 Mr F asked the Council to reconsider his complaint. Below are the key points of his complaint and the Council’s final response:
• Y had a loss of education since November 2023 as a result of the Council’s failure to put suitable alternative provision in place.

The Council did not agree. It found it had considered Mr F’s views, worked with the school, and multi-agency panels had considered the referrals for alternative provision. It explained how it had reached its decisions about alternative provision between November 2023 to July 2024, which included some online provision, mentor support, and social care provision put in place. It acknowledged not all support or provision was successful.

• Mr F was wrongly pressured by the Council to send Y to school in late 2023.

The Council did not find it had acted wrongly. It explained its letter to Mr F was to an expected standard with information about the responsibilities of the school, Mr F, and the Council. No legal action was taken. It also explained it had not pressured Y to attend the school setting but had offered support to enable him to access his education.

• Delays in the EHC plan process, poor standard of the initial draft plan, and disagreements about contents of the final plan;

The Council acknowledged it its initial draft was poor, and it had caused delays in the statutory timescales for the EHC plan process. This was because it had taken three months longer than it should have due to delays with educational psychologists. It apologised and offered Mr F £300 in line with the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies. It explained any disagreement about the final plan can be appealed to the SEND Tribunal.

• The Council failed to deliver the agreed EOTAS provision from September 2024 and it had not agreed to some provision Mr F wanted for Y or what had been suggested by professionals.

The Council accepted it had caused delays to put in place EOTAS provision for Y between September 2024 to February 2025. It explained the provision it had arranged in February 2025 broke down quickly. It subsequently arranged a personal budget for Y which was backdated to March 2025 and paid to Mr F. The Council apologised and offered £2,500 to acknowledge the loss of education Y experienced, and £150 for the distress Mr F experienced. It did not accept it had failed to consider Mr F’s views or views of professionals when arranging the EOTAS provision.

52. Mr F asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint as he remained dissatisfied with its response and proposed remedy.
53. In response to our enquiries the Council confirmed:
• a further final EHC plan was issued for Y in July 2025;
• it had since Mr F’s complaints worked to increase the catalogue of alternative provision providers available to the Council, including teachers and in the home provision;
• it has a high demand for EHC needs assessments and plans. It had recruited additional professionals for the statutory process and made changes to how it prioritises cases and manage backlogs; and
• it has a quality assurance process in place for EHC plans which includes staff training, auditing, dip sampling, and the sign off process for final plans. This is to ensure appropriate standards of plans are issued.

Analysis and findings

The Council’s handling of Y’s education between November 2023 to July 2024

54. Mr F said the Council had wrongly put pressure on the family to get Y to attend his school placement in late 2023 which impacted his mental health.
55. I acknowledge it can be stressful for parents when a child is struggling to attend their school placement, and in this case Y’s attempt to attend school impacted his mental health. However, I have not found fault by the Council. This is because it informed Mr F about the relevant duties of the school, the Council, and Mr F to ensure Y receives an education. It based its decision on the information available to it at the time, and there is no evidence it took formal action against Mr F or Y to go to school.
56. The Council was entitled to provide the school with advice about how Y’s attendance should be marked as it was satisfied the steps the school had taken meant the placement remained suitable for Y.
57. From late 2023 Mr F told the Council and Y’s school Y was too unwell to attend school or receive any education. Y was also in the process of being assessed by the CAMHS and social care. During this time, I would therefore not expect the Council to put in place any alternative provision.
58. Mr F again asked for alternative provision to be put in place for Y in February 2024 and the school made a referral. The request was considered by the Council with input from professionals. It agreed Y was too unwell to attend his school placement and alternative provision should be arranged. It was entitled to reach its view, which could be online provision with some enhanced support to enable Y to access this. I cannot criticise this decision.
59. It is agreed Y did not access any education until the end of the 2024/25 academic year. I have considered whether this was due to fault by the Council. Contrary to the Council’s complaint response, I found the Council failed to arrange any alternative provision for Y as it said it would. This is because:
• I have not seen evidence it commissioned alternative provision with a provider and there was no contact with Mr F from any providers;
• Y’s school was unaware of any arranged provision, despite the Council’s assertation the school was responsible for Y’s education. While the Council is entitled to delegate the provision of alternative provision to a school or other providers, it remains responsible throughout;
• the mentor and the social care support working with Y have confirmed they were not involved with any educational provision for Y. They confirmed if this had been the case, any enhanced education support would not have been funded by social care;
• a review was arranged and held in June 2025. However, this also made it clear no provision had been attempted or accessed. While it is clear professionals had concerns about Y’s dysregulation, it had already been decided the provision should be available to Y; and
• Y did not have access to a working laptop. Although this may not have been fault by the Council as it was reassured by the school this was in place.
60. I cannot say whether Y would have been able to access online alternative provision with support. Mr F own comments and the multi-agency review suggest this may not have been. However, the Council’s failure to ensure this was put in place and available to Y meant he had a loss to receive the educational opportunity he was entitled to up to July 2024.
61. Mr F also experienced some frustration and loss of trust in the Council as it wrongly told him on several occasions such provision was put in place.

The Council’s handling of Y’s education from September 2024

62. The Council accepted it had failed to arrange the agreed EOTAS provision for Y from September 2024 until February 2025 when some provision was in place. Although the Council made attempts to arrange some provision, it failed to do so. This was therefore a service failure.
63. The Council subsequently arranged a personal budget for Y, and Mr F has since received a backdated payment from March 2025 onwards to arrange the agreed provision for Y. I have not found the Council at fault for how it handled the personal budget process from March 2025. However, I acknowledge this meant Y’s lack of education lasted longer than February 2025.
64. I have considered whether the Council’s remedy of £2,500 to acknowledge Y’s loss of education and £150 for the distress Mr F experienced during this period was appropriate. I found the remedy to be appropriate and in line with our published Guidance on Remedies. In reaching my view I was mindful:
• Y was unlikely to be able to engage with a full-time education, but he did not receive any meaningful education;
• the backdated personal budget Mr F received from March to May 2025 mitigates the remedy for this period; and
• the distress payment to Mr F acknowledged the Council’s limited or delayed communication.
65. The Council has shared the steps it has taken to increase the availability of alternative provision and prevent delays in sourcing such provision. I have therefore not made any service improvement recommendations on this point.

Education, Health, and Care plan delay

66. The Council agrees it was at fault for causing a delay of three months in the statutory process, and its initial draft EHC plan for Y was poorly considered and drafted. This was fault.
67. While I acknowledge Mr F is not happy with the Council’s apology and proposed remedy of £300, I am satisfied this was appropriate and in line with our Guidance on Remedies. I also acknowledge he feels, if the draft had been issued, it may have caused risks to Y. However, the EHC plan process is designed to allow for parents and professionals to comment. This is what happened, and changes to the plan were made. In addition, concerns about provision in a final EHC plan carries appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal. I cannot therefore consider this further.
68. The Council has shared information around the steps it has taken to mitigate delays in the EHC plan process, which appears appropriate. I have therefore not made service improvements recommendations on this point.

Complaints handling

69. I have not found fault by the Council in how it handled Mr F’s complaints. This is because it provided its responses in line with its complaints policy.
70. It did take the Council two months to provide its stage two response in September 2024, which was longer than its aims for such responses. However, this was because Mr F provided additional comments and information. The Council informed Mr F at the time that it would therefore take longer to provide its response, and it responded within its revised timescale.

Back to top

Action

71. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr F and Y, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. apologise in writing to Mr F to acknowledge the injustice its faults and service failure caused him and Y;

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 in my findings.

2. pay Mr F its proposed remedy of £2,950, which consisted of:
1. £2,500 to acknowledge the loss of education Y experienced between September 2024 to February 2025 due to the Council’s service failure;
2. £300 to acknowledge the frustrations the Council’s delayed EHC plan process caused, including a delay to his appeal rights; and
3. £150 to acknowledge the distress and uncertainty Mr F experienced.
3. pay Mr F a further £500 to acknowledge Y loss of opportunity to receive online alternative provision with support in the Summer term in 2024.
4. pay Mr F an additional £100 to acknowledge the frustration and loss of trust in the Council’s handling of Y’s alternative provision in the Summer term 2024 and its poor responses caused him.
2. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

73. I have completed my investigation with a finding of fault which caused injustice. The Council will apologise and make payment to Mr F to acknowledge the injustice its faults and service failure caused.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman