Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to provide alternative education to two of her children when they were not attending school. We found the Council’s initial actions were taken without fault. However, we found the Council failed to review its decision when the children were taken off their school’s roll. We recommended an apology and a payment to reflect lost education.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council failed to provide alternative education to her children, Y and Z, when they became unable to attend school from March 2024.
2. Miss X said the matter caused her distress and frustration.

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 suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
5. 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

6. We are investigating the events of the complaint from March 2024 to 1 August 2025 when Miss X brought a complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

What I found

Section 19 duty

9. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that the council 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.

Establishing a section 19 duty

10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.

School Attendance

13. The Education Act 1996 places a duty on parents to ensure their children of compulsory school age, receive a suitable full-time education. Failure to meet this duty is an offence. Councils have the power to prosecute parents who fail to ensure their child’s regular attendance at school. If the court finds a parent guilty of an offence they can receive a fine or imprisonment of up to three months.
14. Where a child’s attendance at school drops below a certain level, it is likely a council’s Education Welfare Officer (EWO) will become involved after a referral from the school. EWOs have various responsibilities. These are typically a mix of providing advice and support to schools, parents and children, while also leading a council’s investigation and enforcement of the law around school attendance.

What Happened

15. The information in this statement provides an overview of the key events most relevant to the complaint. It is not intended to set out everything that happened.
16. The Council told us it first became aware that Miss X’s children were absent from their school (School A) in early March 2024 following contact from the school. It gave advice to School A to engage with Miss X and meet with her to resolve current issues.
17. I understand that Miss X was unhappy that School A would not initiate an Education Health and Care Plan assessment process for Y, as Y was suspected to have ADHD and ASD. She felt the school was not being supportive around issues related to Y’s mental health.
18. During March it was established that Miss X had applied to another school for Y and Z. Y was not accepted. The school intended to make an offer for Z but this was later withdrawn.
19. In April, the Council visited Miss X at home and asked what the plan was for Y and Z’s education. It asked if the intention was for Miss X to homeschool them or find a place at an alternative school. Miss X replied stating she would be homeschooling them and wanted no further contact with the Education Welfare Team (EWT).
20. In April, because the children were still out of school, the Council recorded them as children missing from education (CME). The EWT contacted social workers for input. A social worker considered placing the children on a Child in Need plan with a view to supporting a return to some form of education, but confirmed, from a welfare point of view, the children had been seen and the CME status was updated to reflect this. The Council considered the lack of school attendance remained an issue.
21. In May the Council arranged a meeting and interviewed Ms X about why the children were out of school. The Council says Miss X refused to return the children to their school. She told the Council she was making applications for other schools for them. The Council stated there was no medical or other reason that prevented them attending school. As they had current school places the onus was on Miss X to resolve any issues with School A so the children could return. The Council says it considered whether to prosecute Miss X but decided to allow social workers to work with the family and resolve the issues.
22. The Council wrote to Miss X after the meeting. It stated it believed she was guilty of not ensuring her children attended school. However, given information she provided at the meeting it would monitor the situation for a further four weeks. It stated at that point it would review if the agreed actions had been taken. The actions for Miss X to take were:

• Make an appeal to try to obtain school places as previously discussed with officers.
• Consider alternative options to secure school places such as submitting other in-year applications.
• Reconsider attending a meeting with School A at a neutral venue to discuss the issues there.

23. In June a Child in Need meeting took place. Miss X told social workers she would not return the children to School A.
24. On 17 June the children were removed from the roll at School A because they had been continually absent for 54 days and there was no prospect of them returning. Miss X was unhappy with this. The Council noted Miss X had stated both that the children would not be returning there and had stated she would be home educating.
25. In late June the Council says it considered again whether to prosecute Miss X for the children’s non-attendance between March and June. It decided it should not, but may consider a school attendance order if the situation was not resolved via the children returning to a school or being home educated.
26. In August Miss X complained to the SEN team. She stated the Council had failed to provide alternative education for her child, Y, following issues she had with School A. She said these related to disability discrimination and School A not providing mental health support. She noted the Council had a duty to provide alternative education. She asked for a clear plan detailing how and when alternative education would be put in place.
27. The Council says the SEN team told Miss X that, as Y was not known to the SEN team this was not a complaint they would respond to through the complaints process. Staff offered to speak to Miss X if she needed to discuss this.
28. At the end of September, the Children were not on the roll of any school and no request to home educate the children had been received. As at October 2024, the children were no longer subject to a Child in Need plan and family support had ended.
29. Miss X chased a response to her complaint in November. The SEN team responded to the complaint, stating that it had not been involved with Y. Nor had it received a request for an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. It stated SENDIASS may be able to assist her with the issues at School A. They may also be able to help her make a parental request for an EHC Plan if she wished to do so. It did not comment on Miss X’s request for alternative education.
30. In December, as no applications for schools had been made, the Council decided to seek a School Attendance Order. They held a formal school attendance meeting with Miss X in January 2025 at which it was agreed that applications would be made for new school places and the Education Welfare Service would provide support.
31. Miss X made online school applications and EWT followed up with Miss X in February. In March Z was offered a place at School B. Y was not. Miss X was unsure whether to accept School B for Z as they knew several children who attended who they did not get along with. EWT advised her to discuss this with the School B.
32. Miss X was unhappy that the Council carried out a welfare visit in April 2025. She stated she had removed all her children from school and she would be home educating them all.
33. In April a safeguarding referral was made and the Council was told that Miss X had some mental health difficulties. Miss X explained to us that, separate to the children’s education she had other personal matters that caused significant stress at that time.
34. In July 2025 Miss X emailed the Council repeating her earlier concern that Z had been out of school since March 2024 and that the council had not provided alternative education as it was required to under Section 19 of the Education Act. She stated Z had not been home educated and this had been forced on her because of the Council’s inaction.
35. In the following months the Council worked with the family and arranged school places starting in September 2025.

What should have happened

36. When the Council became aware that Y and Z were not attending school, they contacted Miss X and the school to understand the situation. After establishing the situation, the Council decided there was no medical or other reason which prevented the children from attending school. The Council understood Miss X took issue with School A over various issues. However, the Council considered these could be resolved via discussion between School A and Miss X. The Council explained it was considering prosecution for the children’s non-attendance but allowed Miss X the opportunity to either contact School A to discuss the children’s return there, or find alternative school placements.
37. Parents have a duty to ensure their children attend school, and councils have a role to ensure that they receive an education. So, the Council’s approach to involve the education welfare team and set out actions for Miss X to take was appropriate. It was not fault by the Council.
38. Miss X complained that because her children were not at school the Council had a duty to provide alternative education, under Section 19 of the Education Act.
39. If a council is aware a child is out of school, we would expect them to promptly contact the professionals involved in a child’s education and welfare, as well as listening to parents, and taking account of the available evidence about the situation. However, if, having considered all relevant evidence, a Council decides that an existing school place remains available and accessible to the child (or children) concerned, they are entitled to take the view that a suitable education is already available and the children should attend that placement.
40. In Y and Z’s case, the Council had consulted the school and Miss X. It decided the issues with School A could be resolved and School A was still able to provide them with an education. Because it decided via a proper process that an education was still available at School A, the Council was entitled to reach the view that it’s duty under Section 19 of the Education Act was not engaged. I found no fault in the Council’s initial actions.
41. However, in June 2024, because it seemed unlikely the children would return to School A, the school removed them from its roll. At this point, the children had no school place to attend, and no education was available to them. As the children’s circumstances had changed, I would have expected the Council to have reviewed whether its Section 19 duty applied at this point. I have not seen evidence this happened. I found this was fault.
42. I recognise that the Council continued to require Miss X to act to secure new school places for Y and Z. I note that Miss X did not consistently take the actions required and unfortunately also was unwell during the period concerned. I understand the Council’s decision not to prosecute Miss X. However, while actions were being sought to address the situation in the longer term, Y and Z were not receiving an education. The Council has a duty to ensure children receive an education, so I found the failure to review its Section 19 duty and provide an alternative education while seeking longer term placements amounted to fault by the Council.
43. In making this finding I have noted that at various points Miss X told the Council she had elected to home educate both children and she wanted nothing more to do with the EWT. However, I found no evidence of the Council establishing that any home education began. So, this does not change my view on the need for the Council to provide alternative education.
44. I also found that the Council’s response to Miss X’s complaint failed to set out, in writing, its position on its Section 19 duty. I found this was also fault.
45. Ultimately, Y and Z remained out of school until September 2025 when I understand educational places were found for them. I found that Y and Z were not provided with an education for three school terms between summer 2024 and September 2025.
46. When we find there has been a lack of educational provision we generally recommend a payment of between £900 and £2400 per term. The higher end of this range relates, generally, to children who also have significant special educational needs and where they lacked the support set out in an Education Health and Care Plan. Based on the information I have seen, I have recommended a payment for each child based on £900 per term. This is £2,700 per child. These payments also take account any related distress caused to the family.

Back to top

Action

47. Within four weeks of my final decision:
48. The Council should apologise to Miss X for not reviewing its Section 19 duty when her children were taken off their school roll, and for not clearly communicating its decision about its Section 19 duty in writing. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
49. To recognise the loss of education to Y and to Z, each for three school terms, the Council should make a total payment to Miss X, for Y and Z of £5,400.
50. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

51. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman