Summary: There was no fault by the Council in the provision of interim education after a child, Y, was permanently excluded from school. Y received between 17 and 21 hours of provision per week.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mr X, complains the alternative educational provision from September 2024 after his child, Y was excluded, was not full-time or suitable for his child’s age, ability and aptitude.

2. Mr X also complains the Council did not provide the provision in Section F of an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan from September 2024 onwards. Mr X says that this has meant that Y did not receive the education he should have done to take all the GCSE exams he wanted.

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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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

5. I have investigated events from June 2024 when Y was excluded from school. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in August 2025 so I have investigated events up till that date.
6. Mr X did have a right of appeal to the SEND tribunal in June 2024. However, as the placement in the EHC Plan was not available, as Y was excluded from school, the provision of interim education is separable from the matters Mr X could have appealed. So, I consider this part of the complaint remains in jurisdiction.
7. Mr X will need to make a new complaint to the Council and then the Ombudsman about events from September 2025 onwards.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council and relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr 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

10. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an 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. 
11. Y has an EHC Plan. They were permanently excluded from school on 17 June 2024, at the end of year 9.
12. There was an annual review of the EHC Plan on 19 June 2024. This recommended the setting was changed to an alternative SEMH specialist provision. The review noted that Y could not continue at their current placement as they had been excluded. The Council emailed a letter to Mr X on 28 June 2024 to say it did not intend to amend the EHC Plan and informed him of his right of appeal to the SEND tribunal.
13. The Council arranged 17 hours of educational tuition per week via an online provider from 25 June 2024. In July 2024 Mr X asked the Council to increase the academic level of Y’s provision.
14. There is an email from Mr X dated 7 February 2025 which says that Y was receiving 19 hours of education per week.
15. There was an annual review carried out on 31 March 2025. The parental views section records that Mr X wants Y back into school before the start of year 11 but there is no mention of wanting an increase in tuition hours.
16. In June 2025 Y was receiving 21 hours of educational provision per week. The Council issued the final EHC Plan on 25 June 2025. This named ‘interim provision pending identification of a long-term placement’. Mr X had a right of appeal to the SEND tribunal if he wanted to challenge the provision or the setting in the EHC Plan.

June 2024 Annual Review

17. 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 decide whether it proposes to keep the EHC Plan as it is, amend it, or cease to maintain it and notify the child’s parents or the young person and school or other institution attended. 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) 
18. 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.
19. There was no fault by the Council. Mr X was informed that the EHC Plan was not to be amended and was informed of his right to appeal to the SEND tribunal.

Provision of tuition

20. 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)  
21. 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. 

22. Y was permanently excluded from school so the setting in the EHC Plan was not available to deliver the provision in Section F of the EHC Plan. The Council agreed in June 2024 to provide tuition.
23. The information I have seen shows that Y was given between 17 and 21 hours of tuition per week between June 2024 and July 2025. Full-time education is not defined, but is commonly held to be equivalent to between 22 and 25 hours a week, depending on the age of the child. However, if a Council is arranging one-to-one tuition, fewer hours may be appropriate, giving the increased intensity of learning. So, there is no evidence that the amount of tuition was unreasonable.
24. Mr X’s main complaint is that the tuition provided was not suitable for Y. The reports I have seen describe Y as being capable of higher grades in his GCSE’s and prior to the exclusion Y had good attendance at school.
25. From the information I have, I can see the Council put tuition in place quickly after Y was excluded from school. The Council said that ‘referrals were sent to the providers, who review all relevant information and make a judgement as to whether their provision is appropriate. In the case of tutoring providers, they also confirm they have staff with the relevant skill set to meet the identified needs. Once provision is in place, half-termly reports are received from providers to monitor progress. Where necessary, provision can be amended to address any immediate concerns, such as lack of engagement. Providers are also requested to contribute to annual reviews, including feedback against outcomes; any identified requirements for change are then actioned’.
26. The Council’s notes record that Mr X asked the Council to increase the academic level of the tuition on 5 July 2024, which the Council said was actioned by the tutor. The Council then appointed a new tuition company in September 2024 and additional tuition in March 2025. There is a file note in June 2025 that said that Mr X was happy with the current tuition.
27. Mr X declined additional hours of tuition on 23 June 2025 and the Council referred Y for additional sessions for September 2025.
28. I understand Mr X’s concerns but the evidence I have seen shows the Council has responded to his concerns about the tuition when they were made. So, I find no fault on this point.

Back to top

Decision

29. I have completed my investigation and I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman