Summary: Mr F complained the Council failed to provide his son (X) with an education for over a year, act of serious school transport concerns, and respond to his complaints appropriately. The Council accepted fault in how it handled transport concerns and it had caused X a loss of education. It apologised, proposed a remedy, and took action to improve services. We agreed with the Council’s overall findings, but it was also at fault for some delayed communication and complaints handling. It agreed to provide an increased remedy to Mr F to acknowledge the injustice its faults had on X and Mr F, and to carry out a service improvement recommendation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr F, complained about the Council’s handling of his son’s (X) education and school transport. He said it:
• failed to provide suitable and timely alternative provision when he was unable to attend his school placements in early 2024, Autumn 2024, and February 2025;
• failed to act his concerns about unsafe transport for X to his school placement; and
• communicated poorly with him and did not adhere to its complaints process.
2. He also complained about the Council’s decisions around school placements listed in X’s EHC plan and concerns about X’s education before 2024 which included exclusions.
3. Mr F said, as a result, X experienced a loss of education and the family experienced distress and uncertainty.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. 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)
6. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
7. 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)
8. 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)
9. 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.
10. 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

11. I have investigated the Council’s handling of X’s education and transport from February 2024 to April 2025 when his new Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan was issued. Including how the Council communicated with Mr F and its complaints handling.
12. I have not investigated Mr F’s concerns about:
• The education X received, exclusions, or the EHC plan process prior to February 2024. 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;
• the suitability of school placements. This is because appeal rights to the SEND Tribunal were available, which were the appropriate route to have such concerns decided; and
• the education X received from April 2025 when the Council issued his final amended EHC plan. This is because this was not part of Mr F’s complaint at the time, and Mr F appealed the content and placement listed in the plan to the SEND Tribunal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

13. I considered evidence provided by Mr F and Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
14. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.
15. 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 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.
19. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. Following the review meeting the council must issue a decision to either amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 
20. If the council decides not to amend an EHC Plan or decides to cease to maintain it, it must inform the child’s parents or the young person of their right to appeal the decision to the tribunal.
21. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.

Alternative Provision

22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. 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)
30. 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.

31. 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.

School Transport

32. The Council may provide transport assistance for children or young people with special educational needs. This may be by providing bus passes, arranging mileage costs to parents, in shared transport, or in a taxi.
33. For children who are transported in taxis or in shared transport, the Council will provide its operators with a Passenger Safety Plan. This sets out details about the relevant child, their needs and support requirements, and the equipment necessary for the transport.
34. The Council has contractual arrangements in place with transport operations to ensure compliance with its expected standards. If a provider fails to adhere to expected standards the Council may either work with the provider, issue fines, or terminate contacts.

Council’s complaints policy

35. 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

36. 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.
37. Mr F’s son (X) has health conditions which impacts his ability to engage and receive his education. His needs and the provision he should receive are set out in his EHC plan.
38. In early 2024 the Council agreed X needed a special school placement. An amended final EHC plan was issued in March 2024 which said X should continue with his existing mainstream school (School A) until the end of the academic year. A special school was listed to start from September 2024 (School B). School transport was also arranged with a passenger assistant.

Education and alternative provision

39. X struggled in school and his attendance was limited. He had sickness, absences, and temporary exclusions. Mr F raised his concerns with the Council. In April 2024 X received a permanent exclusion from School A.
40. The Council worked with School A for X to remain on its roll. An alternative provision package was put in place until the end of the academic year. This was with a bespoke provider with the aim of providing X with some education and transition him into his new school for September 2024. The Council also arranged transport with a travel company to the hub where the provision was taking place.
41. Initially the provision worked relatively well. However, by June 2024 X became more dysregulated. The provider asked the Council for increased staffing, which it agreed to.
42. The Council decided to continue the alternative provision for four weeks from September 2024 as X had remained dysregulated toward the end of the academic year.
43. However, in early September 2024 the alternative provision provider told the Council X had become very dysregulated. Shortly after, Mr F shared a GP letter with the Council, which said X would not be able to return to school for the foreseeable future.
44. During the following month the Council:
• considered information received from Mr F and the alternative provision provider;
• acknowledged X could not attend School B, but sought clarification from the GP around whether he could receive education in alternative provision hubs, only in the home, or not at all;
• held a professionals meeting and decided to extend the provision with the alternative provision provider for a further four weeks.
45. Following a delay, X’s GP told the Council his education should be in an appropriate form to meet his needs taking into account his anxiety and behavioural difficulties.
46. In November 2024 the Council started sourcing alternative provision providers for X. Delays occurred as a provider initially said it could meet X’s needs but then withdrew from the proposal. The Council again sought providers. An agreement was reached with a provider which assessed X at home. The provision started in February 2025.
47. However, Mr F was not happy with the arrangement and communicated directly with the provider. After only about a week the arrangement broke down, and the provider withdrew.
48. The Council again sourced alternative provision providers. It found a provider, but Mr F declined for X to be assessed by the provider when this was offered.
49. The Council issued a final amended EHC plan for X in April 2025, which listed School B. I also understand alternative provision was arranged in May 2025 through School B.
50. Mr F complained to the Council about its handling of X’s education during Autumn 2024 and in 2025. He said it:
• failed to provide suitable and timely alternative provision when X was unable to attend his school placements in early 2024, Autumn 2024, and from February 2025. He also said the permanent exclusion was unlawful;
• failed to act on his concerns about unsafe transport for X to his school placement (see Transport issues below); and
• communicated poorly with him, and did not adhere to its complaints process.
51. Mr F also complained about the Council’s handling of the EHC plan process and decisions. He continued to disagree with the school placement listed in X’s EHC plan.
52. The Council responded to Mr F’s complaints:
• in October 2024, it did not uphold his complaint. It explained since September 2024 alternative provision was available to X. It had since taken steps to find an alternative provision provider, but had to ensure X provision was suitable for X. It also explained Mr F had appeal rights regarding his disagreement around the school placement in the EHC plan, and found it had communicated appropriately with him.
• In December 2024, it did not uphold his complaint as it again found X had a suitable school placement and alternative provision in place from September 2024. It had subsequently taken appropriate steps to find another alternative provision provider. It explained the challenges it had experienced and continued its efforts to put this in place.
• In May 2025, it considered Mr F’s concerns about X’s educational provision in early 2024, but found this was the school’s responsibility at the time and provision was in place. It also said it acted appropriately when School A excluded X. However, it accepted provision was not in place from October 2024 until May 2025 despite its efforts. It offered a remedy of £2,500 to acknowledge the impact the loss of provision caused X, and £150 for the distress and uncertainty it caused Mr F. It did not accept it communicated poorly with him.

Transport issues

53. In Summer 2024 Mr F told the Council about issues with the transport company. He said it was failing to keep X safe through the assistant or agreed equipment which was not in place. He chased it for a response a week later and subsequently complained when he had not received a response. He provided further information which included X had been transported in the footwell of the car.
54. The Council initially did not uphold the complaint about the transport concerns but acknowledged it had not responded to his concerns in a timely manner. It said it believed the matter was resolved.
55. Mr F escalated his transport complaint and provided evidence of the ongoing issues. The Council acknowledged it was clear the service received was not to the standard the Council expected, X was not transported safely in line with the law, and its initial response had not properly considered the evidence. It said it would investigate further and respond by early September 2024.
56. Mr F chased the Council for its response in September 2024 and shared his frustrations with its complaints handling.
57. In October 2024 the Council provided its final complaints response after having considered information from Mr F, the travel company, and the alternative provision provider. It found it had not properly considered and actioned Mr F concerns at the time, the transport company had failed to keep X safe, and it had caused delays in its responses and complaints handling. It apologised for the poor service received. It also explained it had taken action with the transport company, recruited compliance officers, and made changes to its service to better address such concerns in the future.
58. The Council further considered Mr F’s transport complaint in its May 2025 response but was satisfied its previous response had appropriately address the concern.
59. Mr F asked the Ombudsman to consider his complaint as he remained dissatisfied with its response and proposed remedy.

Analysis and findings

Did the Council cause X a loss of education?

60. I have considered whether the Council caused X a loss of education between early 2024 to April 2025. I found:
• the Council worked appropriately with the school when X struggled to attend and received his permanent exclusion in Spring 2024. It ensured educational provision was arranged by the School, and acted when this broke down to ensure other alternative provision was put in place. I acknowledge this took longer than 15 days to arrange and X did have a loss of education in the period up to July 2024. However, considering the circumstances I am not satisfied this was due to fault or delay by the Council.
• the Council correctly accepted it caused X a loss of education from October 2024. This is because it was told by Mr F and X’s GP he was unable to attend school at the start of September 2024, and he was not attending the provision which had been arranged. It therefore had a duty to consider and source alternative provision which could meet his needs either outside of school or in his home. I acknowledge the Council made efforts to do so, and parts of the delays were largely outside its control. This was therefore a service failure from October 2024 when I would have expected such provision to be in place.
• X’s loss of education continued in February 2025. Although, the Council had arranged alternative provision, it broke down shortly after it started, and X did not receive educational provision until May 2025.
61. I therefore agree with the Council’s own findings in May 2025 where it agreed it had caused X a loss of education between October 2024 to May 2025, which is equivalent to nearly two academic terms.
62. I considered the Council’s apology and proposed remedy of £2,500 to acknowledge the impact this had on X and the family in line with our published Guidance on Remedies. I am not satisfied the remedy fully acknowledges the loss of education X experienced. I found a remedy payment of £3,200 to be appropriate having regard to the actions of the Council and X was unlikely to be able to engage with a full-time education at the time.

Did the Council fail to keep X safe in school transport?

63. The Council accepted it had failed to address Mr F’s concerns about the school transport in a timely manner and its initial investigation and response was poor.
64. I agree with the Council’s finding. It was found fault for how it considered and responded to Mr F’s safety and wellbeing concerns for X in Summer 2024. This was because the reported concerns:
• were in clear breach of the transport plan the Council had put in place for the provider and X. This included a failure by the provider to have appropriate equipment in place, support X as required, and it transported him in breach of the law on several occasions;
• were poorly investigated and largely only considered the transport provider’s statement; and
• required immediate action to ensure the safety and wellbeing of X.
65. I also found the Council’s apology and the actions it has since taken to address its faults were appropriate. This included actions with the relevant officer, the travel company, and it made service changes to ensure such concerns are considered and actioned in a timely manner in the future.
66. However, I am not satisfied the Council’s £150 distress payment to Mr F, to acknowledge its fault and service failures on this complaint, is enough to remedy the impact its transport failings had on X and Mr F. I found a payment of £500 to be appropriate to acknowledge the distress the family experienced which includes consideration to the risk of harm X was subject to.

Did the Council’s properly communicate and respond to Mr F’s complaints

67. Mr F raised several issues with the Council between early 2024 to April 2025. I found overall the Council communicated and responded to his concerns. However, there were instances where the Council’s communication was poor or delayed. This included:
• its handling of Mr F’s transport complaint, which was first properly responded to around four months after it had been brought to its attention. While further investigation was necessary, I am not satisfied this was a timely response in line with its complaints policy and it failed to respond within the extended deadline it had given him. Mr F also had to chase it for its response;
• its handling of Mr F’s alternative provision complaint from September 2024 was responded to in line with its complaint policy and the timescales it provided Mr F. However, it took until May 2025 for the Council to acknowledge its failure to ensure X received his education. I have seen no good reason this could not have been acknowledged in its initial responses; and
• limited action or responses to Mr F took place in February 2025 when the alternative provision it had arranged broke down.
68. I am satisfied the Council’s poor handling of Mr F’s complaints and concerns therefore also caused him unnecessary time and trouble to pursue his complaints.

Back to top

Action

69. To remedy the injustice the Council caused to Mr F and X, the Council should, within one month of the final decision:
1. pay Mr F £3,200 to acknowledge the loss of education X experienced between October 2024 to May 2025 due to the Council’s service failure.
2. pay Mr F £500 to acknowledge the distress and risk of harm caused to Mr F and X as a result of its fault in addressing serious and urgent transport concerns with its provider.
3. Pay Mr F a further £150 to acknowledge the unnecessary time and trouble and frustrations he experienced as a result of its poor and delayed complaints handling.

In total the Council should pay Mr F £3,850.

70. Within three months of the final decision the Council should also:
1.  
2.  
3.  
4. We publish the Complaint Handling Code which sets out best practice in how councils should deal with complaints. In this case, we found the Council at fault because it caused unnecessary delay in the complaints handling. In order to prevent similar faults from happening in future, the Council should consider our guidance and tell us what action(s) it will take to improve the way it deals with complaints.
71. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

72. I have completed my investigation to find fault causing injustice. The Council agreed to make payment to Mr F to acknowledge the injustice its faults and service failure caused. It will also carry out a service improvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman