Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s failure to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains that the Council has failed to make appropriate full-time alternative educational provision for her son while he has been unable to attend school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. 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)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says her son cannot attend the school at which he is on roll. She says he has not had meaningful access to education since February 2024 and has been unable to attend school at all since November 2024.
6. It is Ms X’s contention that, as her son cannot attend school, the Council’s duty under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to make suitable full-time alternative provision is engaged. She complains that it has declined to do so. She also complains that the Council responded to representations from her MP, but not to her directly.
7. It is not for the Ombudsman to express a view on whether the Section 19 duty applies. That is for the Council. The question for us is whether there is evidence of fault in the way the Council made the decision not to make alternative provision. There is no such evidence.
8. In the course of the correspondence, the Council has explained that Ms X’s initial request for alternative provision was made in November 2024. In December 2024 it was considered by a group of multi-agency education professionals. Officers also met with the school. On the basis of these considerations, it decided not to make alternative provision. It reviewed the matter in March 2025 and again decided that alternative provision was not warranted.
9. Ms X disagrees with the Council’s decisions. But that does not mean they amount to fault. There is no evidence of fault in the way the Council considered the matter and reached the view it did. That being the case, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view.
10. Given that Ms X had asked for her MP’s intervention, it was reasonable for the Council to respond to the MP rather than her. In any case, it is clear that this did not deny Mrs X information to which she was entitled, so there are no grounds for the Ombudsman to pursue the matter.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman