Summary: Mrs Y complains the Council failed to ensure her child received suitable provision once they stopped attending school. In our view, the Council did not properly consider whether it had a duty to arrange alternative provision once it became aware the child was not in school. The Council also insisted on certain medical evidence which is not in accordance with statutory government guidance. The Council will complete the agreed actions to remedy the injustice caused by fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs Y complains the Council failed in its legal duty to ensure that child received a suitable education when they were unable to attend school from October 2024.

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 the 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs Y and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. Mrs Y and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
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 found

What should happen

Alternative provision

7. 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 provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.
8. 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.
9. 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)
10. 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.

11. 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.

Medical evidence

12. The DfE statutory guidance “Arranging education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs” says the following:

“All medical evidence should be used to better understand the needs of the child and identify the most provision. Local authorities, working closely with the child’s home school, medical practitioners (such as a GP or consultant) and the child’s family, should make every effort to minimise the disruption to a child’s education by identifying the most suitable provision”.

“Where specific medical evidence, such as that provided by a medical practitioner, is not readily available, the child’s home school or the local authority should consider liaising with other medical practitioners and consider other evidence to ensure appropriate provision can be arranged as soon as possible. The local authority should review any additional evidence to help them identify the most suitable provision”.

Elective Home Education (EHE)

13. Parents have a right to educate their children at home (Section 7, Education Act 1996). This can include the use of tutors or parental support groups. Elective home education is distinct from education provided by a council otherwise than at school, for example when a child is too ill to attend. In choosing to educate a child at home, the parents take on financial responsibility for any costs involved, including examination costs.

What happened

14. Mrs Y has a school aged child whom I will refer to as D. In October 2024 D stopped attending school. Mrs Y said this was due to Emotional Based School Avoidance (EBSA) and burnout from anxiety. The Council’s ‘Attendance and Children Out of School’ (ACOOS) team became aware on 9 October 2024 that D was persistently absent from school.
15. Around this time, the Council’s Education Family Support Worker (EFSW) supported the school with D’s attendance and arranged an Attendance Action Plan (AAP) meeting in October 2024. Following this, the ESFW communicated with Mrs Y by email.
16. Mrs Y told the EFSW on 15 October that D had returned to school this week but said: “I am not sure if this will continue”.
17. Through Targeted Support Meetings (TSMs) attended by D’s school and officers from the Council, it became apparent that D’s school attendance was just 24.73% in January 2025. The school told the Council it marked D absent due to ‘illness’ arising from anxiety. The Council says it advised D’s school to establish whether D was receiving support from Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). If so, the Council said the school should ask CAMHS to support a referral for ‘Medical Needs Tuition’ (MNT).
18. On 25 April 2025 Mrs Y contacted the Council’s SEND department to formally request education for D under Section 19 of the Education Act. The department told Mrs Y that it could not help with the request because D does not have an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan.
19. Another TSM meeting went ahead on 13 May 2025. This showed that D’s attendance had dropped further to 21% and that D was not attending school due to anxiety. The school said Mrs Y advised that D was on the CAMHS waiting list. The Council advised the school to complete an attendance meeting and to offer a reintegration transition timetable which the Council would review in four to six weeks. Mrs Y says the attendance meeting did not take place.
20. Mrs Y also says the school was aware that D’s referral to CAMHS was declined in late 2024.
21. Mrs Y re-submitted her request on 14 May 2025. This time she sent it to the Children Missing in Education (CME) team at the Council. The team acknowledged the request and said someone would contact her soon.
22. Internal emails between Council officers record the view that: “[D] would not currently meet threshold for medical needs tuition”.
23. The following week, Mrs Y sent a chaser email to the Council because she had not received any contact regarding her request for education.
24. Mrs Y complained to the Council, and it responded on 18 June 2025. In summary, it said:
• To access education for D on medical grounds, Mrs Y needs medical evidence from either a Consultant, Paediatrician, Psychiatrist, Psychologist or CAMHS professional.
• D has access to ongoing mental health support at their allocated school.
• Mrs Y may use the school’s strategies to help D transition back into full-time school. D could also access remote learning alongside a transition timetable. Following this, the tuition team would review D’s case to assess whether there were any improvements in their attendance.
25. In response, Mrs Y says the school did not offer any mental health support to D and D’s access to the online provision was delayed due to technical issues.
26. From September 2025, Mrs Y decided to electively home educate (EHE) D. The Council says it has recently received a record of education from Mrs Y which showed that D is receiving an education suitable for their age, aptitude and ability.

Was there fault in the Council’s actions causing injustice to Mrs Y and D?

27. The Council became aware in October 2024 that D was persistently absent from school. From November 2024 Mrs Y reported that D had stopped attending school completely. By January 2025 D’s attendance had fallen to around 25% and the school and Mrs Y reported that anxiety was the reason for D’s absence.
28. At this point the Council knew that D was receiving very little education and there was no indication that D would return to regular attendance. Under its duties as outlined in Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, the Council should have considered whether D required alternative education because their mental health prevented them from attending school. In my view, the records do not show the Council properly considered these duties.
29. Instead, the Council advised that Mrs Y needed medical evidence from specific professionals, such as a consultant or CAMHS professional, before it would decide whether to provide any education outside of school. However, Mrs Y told the Council D was on a CAMHS waiting list and that their referral was eventually declined. The records show the Council did not consider other available evidence about D’s anxiety and non-attendance. The Council continued to focus on attendance meetings rather than assessing whether it needed to arrange alternative provision for D.
30. Because of this, the Council did not properly consider its Section 19 duty when it was clear D had stopped attending school. The Council now asserts that D’s school remained suitable, available and accessible, but there is no evidence to show the Council made this judgement at the time D stopped attending. Nor is it clear what evidence the Council has relied upon when making this assertion.
31. As the Council did not properly carry out or record this assessment, it is not possible to say what it would have decided if it had properly considered its Section 19 duties. The Council may have concluded that the school placement remained suitable and that reintegration strategies were appropriate. On the other hand, it may have decided D needed alternative provision. This fault therefore causes uncertainty about whether D would have received education arranged by the Council while they were unable to attend their allocated school. The Council will remedy that uncertainty with the actions listed in the section below.

Back to top

Action

32. Within four weeks of our final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Make a symbolic payment of £500. This is in recognition of the uncertainty caused by the failure to properly consider its Section 19 duty between November 2024 and September 2025.
33. Within twelve weeks of our final decision, the Council will also:
• Remind relevant officers to record clear decisions about whether a child can reasonably attend school and whether alternative provision is required. Where the Council decides alternative provision is not necessary, it will record the reasons for that decision and the evidence it relied on.
• Remind relevant staff that they should not insist on medical evidence from specific professionals, such as consultants or CAMHS clinicians, before considering whether the Section 19 duty applies. Officers should consider all available information about the child’s circumstances, recognising that some families may not be able to obtain evidence from specialist services.
• Review its ‘Medical Needs Tuition’ policy (September 2022) to make sure it reflects the Department for Education’s statutory guidance, which says councils should consider all available medical evidence, including evidence from GPs, when deciding what education a child may need. The Council’s current policy requires consultant level evidence at the point of referral and only accepts GP evidence in limited circumstances and on an interim basis.
34. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed to complete the actions listed above to remedy the injustice caused by fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman