Summary: Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter with appropriate alternative provision when she stopped attending school. We find the Council was at fault for failing to document it properly considered the type of alternative provision that would be suitable for Mrs X’s daughter. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs X and make a payment to her.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council failed to provide her daughter, Y, with appropriate alternative provision when she stopped attending school. This has caused significant distress and upset and negatively affected Y’s educational progress.

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 cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
4. 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.
5. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

7. My investigation covers events from late February 2025 to 17 September 2025.
8. The Council issued Y’s final Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan on 17 September 2025. Mrs X disagreed with the content of plan, including the placement the Council named.
9. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207). This means that if a child or young person is not attending school, and we decide the reason for non-attendance is linked to, or is a consequence of, a parent or young person’s disagreement about the special educational provision or the educational placement in the EHC Plan, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents or young person. If the parent or young person goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the Tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded
10. Mrs X said in her appeal Y could not attend the mainstream placement because it did not meet her needs and she wanted a specialist placement. The reason Y is not attending school is linked to Mrs X’s disagreement about the educational placement. Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to investigate what alternative provision the Council provided to Y after 17 September 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Alternative provision

13. 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.
14. 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.

What happened

15. Y has special educational needs. She stopped attending school in late February 2025 because of her severe social anxiety.
16. Y’s school asked for medical evidence to support her non-attendance. Her GP sent an email in March and said Y was experiencing severe social and separation anxiety. He supported Mrs X’s decision to keep Y off school. He said the aim would be to work towards reintegrating Y back into the school environment which required careful planning.
17. Y’s school made a referral to the Council about Y’s non-attendance in April.
18. Mrs X applied to the Council to complete an assessment of Y’s EHC needs in April and decide whether she needed an EHC Plan. An EHC Plan sets out a child’s special educational needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
19. The Council reviewed the school’s referral in late April. It decided Y needed alternative provision. It agreed outreach support at home with a view to bringing Y onsite when she was more comfortable was suitable. This started in May.
20. Y struggled to engage in outreach support because of her mental health. She started accessing provision through a robot in late June. This was online provision that allowed Y to participate in lessons from home.
21. Mrs X emailed the Council and the school in early July. She said Y had accessed five morning sessions using the robot. This was a positive step, but she was concerned this provision alone was not suitable to support the next stage of Y’s recovery. She said although Y was engaging, the sessions triggered high levels of anxiety, and it required constant parental support. She also said the intermittent connection meant Y missed part of the lessons and the provision did not allow Y to engage with an adult outside of the household. She said therapeutic education, such as animal therapy, would be appropriate for Y’s needs. She also said the work did not meet Y’s academic needs.
22. An Educational Psychologist (EP) assessed Y and provided their report in early July. EP advice is mandatory for an EHC needs assessment. This report said Y needed a bespoke, carefully managed and gradual transition back into education provision. The EP also said Y needed 1:1 or online tuition, emotional regulation support and support for her sensory needs.
23. The Council held a panel meeting to discuss Y’s provision a few days later. The panel questioned how Y could access therapeutic support, such as animal therapy, if she could not access outreach support. The panel also said it was not usually considered appropriate to have two therapeutic approaches in place. A mental health agency was involved with Y, and it could facilitate provision for her or confirm its offer. The panel decided the Council had made suitable provision through outreach and the robot.
24. Mrs X attended a meeting with the Council and Y’s school the following day to review Y’s provision. The Council explained it would not provide further funding for Y’s alternative provision unless she had an EHC Plan that stipulated alternative provision. It said robotic provision was appropriate for Y. Mrs X said Y needed to have varied provision to meet her emotional needs.
25. Y struggled to access the robotic provision during the end of the summer term because of her anxiety.
26. The Council provided Mrs X with a copy of the panel notes. Mrs X responded and said the panel had failed to consider all her concerns about the robotic provision. She said animal therapy was the only provision Y had consistently engaged with. The panel had failed to understand Y’s needs. She said while the mental health agency had accepted Y’s referral, it had not completed an assessment or provided Y with any therapeutic support.
27. Mrs X complained to the Council about its failure to provide Y with suitable alternative provision. She said the outreach support it provided to Y was damaging to her mental health. She also said the robotic provision was making Y’s anxiety worse and did not align with the advice from her GP. She said the Council had failed to provide Y with therapeutic intervention even though this was in the EP’s report.
28. The Council responded to Mrs X’s concerns about Y’s provision. It said Y could access therapeutic support onsite from the outreach provider. This would give her an opportunity to meet other young people.
29. Mrs X responded and explained the connection issues with the robot was having a significant impact on Y. She also said the outreach provider was not working for Y and her phobias with education-based settings meant she could not access in person support and attending the setting would be distressing for her. She said she had spoken to staff at the outreach provider, and it said it could not provide any other support for Y.
30. The Council held another panel meeting to discuss Y’s case in August. It agreed to provide Y with some online tutoring provision to meet its section 19 duties.
31. The Council emailed Mrs X in late August and confirmed it had agreed funding for online alternative provision from a provider (Provider A) for up to 15 hours per week. Mrs X asked how the Council would address Y’s therapeutic needs. The Council responded and said alongside therapy support from a mental health service, it hoped Y would be able to have some hours in person.
32. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint. It said it had fulfilled its legal duties by offering Y online and outreach support. It also said Y could access therapeutic support from the outreach provider.
33. Provider A contacted Mrs X to arrange a meeting to discuss Y’s provision. It provided availability from 15 September onwards. Mrs X agreed a meeting for the following week.
34. The Council issued Y’s final EHC Plan on 17 September.

Back to top

Analysis

35. It is for a council to decide what suitable alternative provision is for a child. It should consider the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have. If a council has made its decision properly, and considered all relevant factors, we cannot criticise it.
36. In Y’s case, the Council initially decided outreach support at home was appropriate for her. When Mrs X raised concerns about this provision, Y started receiving robotic provision. While Y did engage in this provision, Mrs X raised concerns this provision alone was not suitable for Y.
37. The panel reviewed Y’s provision in July and decided outreach support and robotic provision was suitable for Y. However, I am not satisfied it properly considered Mrs X’s concerns and the information in Y’s case.
38. First, the panel said the mental health agency was involved with Y, and the agency could facilitate therapeutic provision for her or confirm its offer. However, the agency had not completed an assessment of Y’s needs, and it had not agreed to provide her with any provision. The information the panel considered did not fully reflect Y’s circumstances. This is fault.
39. Second, the panel failed to consider Mrs X’s other concerns about Y becoming anxious during sessions, the robotic provision not being in line with Y’s academic needs and the provision not supporting Y to develop the ability to engage with an adult outside of the household. I would have expected to see proper consideration of this and why, in light of these concerns, the provision was suitable for Y. The Council’s failure to do so was fault.
40. Third, the Council questioned how Y could access animal therapy if she could not access outreach support. Animal therapy and outreach support are completely different types of provision. I am not satisfied the panel fully understood this.
41. The Council also explained Y had therapeutic support available onsite at the outreach provider. However, Mrs X said that if Y attended onsite, it would cause distress because of her phobia with education-based settings. The Council has not explained how accessing therapeutic support onsite remained appropriate given these concerns. Also, the provision Y could have accessed onsite at the outreach provider was different from the offsite provision Y could have accessed at an animal therapy provider.
42. The Council reviewed Y’s provision again in August and agreed to provide her with 1:1 online tuition. However, I cannot see from the notes the panel considered whether therapeutic intervention, such as animal therapy away from an educational setting, would also be appropriate for Y. Given Y had accessed this provision successfully for several weeks, and Mrs X had asked for this provision, I would have expected the Council to have fully considered whether this would be appropriate for Y. The Council’s failure to do so was fault.
43. I cannot say, even on the balance of probabilities, what the outcome would have been if it the Council had acted without fault. Its decision may have remained the same. However, its faults have caused Mrs X uncertainty and frustration about Y’s education. The Council should take action to remedy this injustice.

Back to top

Action

44. By 7 September 2026 the Council has agreed to:

• Apologise to Mrs X for the injustice caused by fault in this statement.
• Pay Mrs X £200.

45. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

46. There was fault by the Council, which caused Mrs X an injustice. The Council has agreed to my recommendations and so I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman