Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide alternative education for her child, Y after they were permanently excluded from school. We found the Council at fault for a delay in making alternative provision for Y resulting in a loss of educational provision and distress. The Council agreed to apologise and make a symbolic payment to Miss X to remedy the injustice caused. It also agreed to carry out service improvements to prevent reoccurrence of the fault.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to provide alternative education or a school place when her child, Y, was permanently excluded from school in December 2024. As a result, she says Y has missed out on educational provision.

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. We may investigate matters coming to our attention during an investigation, if we consider that a member of the public who has not complained may have suffered an injustice as a result. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26D and 34E, as amended)
4. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
5. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
6. 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)
7. 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

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Alternative provision

10. Councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils who are out of school because of exclusion, illness or for other reasons, if they would not receive suitable education without such arrangements. (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision.
11. This applies to all children of compulsory school age living in the local council area, whether or not they are on the roll of a school. (Statutory guidance ‘Alternative Provision’ January 2013)
12. Suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have. (Education Act 1996, section 19 (6))
13. Where a child is permanently excluded from a school, the council must arrange provision from the sixth day after the exclusion. (The Education (Provision of Full-Time Education for Excluded Pupils) (England) Regulations 2007, and accompanying statutory guidance)

What happened

14. At the beginning of December 2024, the Council became aware that Miss X’s child, Y, had been permanently excluded from school.
15. The Council provided Y with alternative provision at the end of March 2025.
16. At the start of April 2025, Miss X complained to the Council, she said:
• Y had been excluded from school in December 2024, and she had appealed the decision; and
• an independent review panel (IRP) had taken place, but she had not received the outcome of this or a response for a complaint made to the school four months earlier.
17. In its response the Council said an IRP decision was binding and could only be challenged through court. Miss X should ensure she had followed the school’s complaint procedure.
18. Miss X escalated her complaint she said:
• the Council had failed in its duty to provide Y with education by the sixth day of exclusion;
• only after she had contacted the Council after two months had she had any response about Y’s education after their permanent exclusion; and
• the school were refusing to provide a final complaint response.
19. The Council provided a response at the end of May 2025. It said its response at stage one about Y’s exclusion remained the same, it apologised for delaying in responding to Miss X regarding Y’s education before the sixth day after exclusion and the school complaint had to be addressed by the school governors as per policy.
20. Miss X raised further concerns relating to the Councils duties to provide alternative provision to Y after the sixth day. She said she had needed to chase the Council after six weeks and the delay had been detrimental to Y.
21. The Councils responses in June 2025, said:
• it was sorry for the delay from December 2024 to March 2025 in providing Y with alternative provision. It recognised that not ensuring provision by the sixth day of permanent exclusion was not acceptable;
• it was pleased Y was now dual registered at two schools where they had started this provision at the end of March 2025; and
• the Council was developing a wider offer of opportunities for young people in Y’s position including, actively working with alternative provision providers, significantly investing to commission further placements and creating three new teams to support attendance, exclusions and alternative provision.
22. Miss X replied to the Councils response, she said it had used the wrong name when referring to Y in its responses, further it had recognised it was at fault and therefore should provide her with compensation.
23. Miss X remained dissatisfied with the Councils actions and responses and asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

The Council’s response to the Ombudsman

24. The Council said it had referred Y for alternative provision within the six days after exclusion, however no places were available. As a consequence, Y was placed on a waiting list.
25. Y was not offered any tuition because a significant number of exclusions occurred during the same period and Y secured a placement before it could be organised.
26. It was unable to establish further reason for the delay due to lack of evidence.
27. It said Y’s start date for the alternative provision was the end of February 2025 and they moved to dual registration at the end of March 2025.

The Council’s alternative provision waiting list

28. The Council told us that 237 pupils had been permanently excluded across all key stages during the same period as Y (December 2024 to March 2025). Of these, 137 were placed on its alternative provision waiting list, with an average waiting time of 20 days.
29. It said it recognised during this period, it did not consistently meet the statutory sixth-day duty to put alternative provision in place for all permanently excluded pupils. Where delays occurred, this was because of provision availability. The Council accepted the need for continued improvement in the service.

My Findings

30. The Council had a statutory duty to provide Y with a suitable education by the sixth day after their exclusion. The Council did not provide Y with a suitable full-time education between the beginning of December 2024 and the end of March 2025. This is fault which caused distress, uncertainty and a loss of a full term’s education for Y.
31. The Council has acknowledged that it dd not provide alternative provision to 137 pupils within the statutory six days after permanent exclusion between December 2024 and March 2025. This service failure is fault. We cannot say to what extent this has caused those pupils an injustice. However, I have made a recommendation below for the Council to address the matter and to reduce the delays going forward.

Back to top

Action

32. To remedy the injustice caused, within one month of the final decision the Council will take the following action:
1. Apologise to Miss X for the delay in providing Y with alternative provision and the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £1200, to recognise Y’s loss of educational provision for one term and the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused Miss X.
33. Within three months of the final decision the Council will take the following action:
1. Review the cases of each of the 137 permanently excluded pupils placed on the waiting list between December 2024 and March 2025. Where its six-day statutory duty to provide alternative provision was not met it will:
1. contact the parent or guardian of those identified pupils and advise them it did not meet its six-day statutory duty for alternative provision and provide them with an update; and
2. provide details about how those identified can complain through the Council’s corporate complaint procedure.
2. produce an action plan to identify how it will meet its six-day statutory duty to provide alternative provision to pupils after permanent exclusion. The action plan should include but is not limited to:
1. a review its commissioning arrangements with alternative provision providers to ensure it has sufficient capacity;
2. the actions it will undertake to reduce capacity constraints within its alternative provision system;
3. the actions it will take to reduce current waiting lists and times for permanently excluded pupils; and
4. timeframes for any action to be taken.
34. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

35. I found fault causing injustice and the Council has agreed to recommendations to remedy the injustice and for service improvement.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman