Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 for the complainant’s son while he was unable to attend school. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 for her son while he was unable to attend 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 says her son was unable to attend school full-time from June 2024. In November and December 2024, she asked the school and the Council to make alternative provision for him under its Section 19 duty. She complains that the Council declined to accept that the Section 19 duty was engaged. As a result, her son missed out on full-time education.
6. The Council has subsequently issued Ms X’s child with an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. It has placed him at a Pupil Referral Unit providing full-time provision. It is Ms X’s contention that this demonstrates that the Section 19 duty applied and that the Council was at fault in not making alternative provision when she requested it.
7. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether the Section 19 duty is engaged. That is a matter for the Council. The question for us is whether there is evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision and, if so, whether this fault could have led to a different outcome. There is no such evidence in this case.
8. The correspondence shows that the school did make some alternative provision from January 2025. It also shows that the Council considered that this, combined with part-time attendance at school, was a reasonable and proportionate response on the school’s part in the circumstances of the case. This position is properly set out in the Council’s responses to Ms X’s complaint and there is no evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its view
9. Without evidence of fault on the Council’s part, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision it made or intervene to substitute an alternative view. Whether the Council subsequently took a different view once an Education Health and Care Needs Assessment was completed and an EHC plan issued is not relevant. We will not therefore investigate the complaint.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman