Summary: Miss X complained about the way the Council dealt with her elective home education request. We found no fault in the actions of the Council.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains about the way the Council dealt with her elective home education request. She says the Council wrongly refused to give consent to remove her son, Y, from his special educational needs school to allow her to provide elective home education. Miss X also complains that the Council operates discriminatory practice by refusing all children with special educational needs consent to be electively home educated.
2. Miss X says this has caused unnecessary stress and anxiety for the whole family and has worsened Y’s relationship with his school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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)
5. 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

6. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. 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

Legislation and guidance

EHC Plan 

8. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (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. 
9. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section B: Special educational needs.  
• Section I: The name and/or type of educational placement 

Reviewing EHC Plans

10. 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 issue a decision to either amend, maintain or cease to maintain the EHC Plan. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176) 

Elective Home Education (EHE)

11. Parents have a right to educate their children at home (Section 7, Education Act 1996). This can include the use of tutors or parental support groups. Elective home education is distinct from education provided by a council otherwise than at school, for example when a child is too ill to attend
12. There are no specific legal requirements for the content of home education; it does not need to include particular subjects, follow the National Curriculum or culminate in examinations. It does not need to follow a typical ‘school day’. Councils should not assume an unconventional approach constitutes unsuitable education and approaches should be judged on outcomes.
13. The information needed to satisfy the test of whether suitable education is being provided depends on the facts of the case and judgement of the council.
14. When a child has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, the council must ensure the educational provision specified in the plan is made available to the child, but only if the child’s parents have not arranged for the child to receive suitable education in some other way. Therefore, if the home education is suitable, the council has no duty to arrange any special educational provision for the child. The EHC Plan should set out the type of special education the council thinks the child requires, but it should state in a suitable place that the parents have made their own arrangements under S7 of the Education Act 1996.
15. The council should continue to check the suitability of the education as with all other children educated at home. If at any point it considers the education is no longer suitable, it must ensure the special educational provision specified in the EHC Plan is made available.

The Council’s policy

16. When a parent/carer sends the Council a request for EHE, the Council will determine whether the education being provided meets the legal requirements of Section 7 Education Act 1996.
17. Home educating families will be offered a meeting to discuss the educational provision they are making.
18. The right to EHE applies equally to a child with special educational needs. Home education must be suitable for the child’s age, ability, aptitude and special educational needs.
19. Where a child has an EHC plan and they are home educated, it remains the duty of the Council to ensure the child’s needs are met.
20. If the child attends a special school, the Council’s consent must be given before the child’s name may be removed the admission register. In this situation, it will arrange an interim annual review to review the EHC plan and discuss the provisions that will be made at home to meet the child’s needs. The Council will then consider whether the EHE is suitable before amending section I of the EHC plan.
21. In some cases, the Council may conclude that, even after considering its power to provide support to home educating parents, the provision that is or could be made for a child with an EHC plan does not meet the child or young person’s needs.

What happened?

22. Y is a child with an EHC plan.
23. In November 2024, at an annual review, Miss X expressed her preference to EHE Y. At this meeting, the Council explained the EHE process and the requirement for Miss X to demonstrate how she intended to EHE.
24. The Council amended Y’s EHC plan in January 2025. This noted that Y’s needs could be met at a special needs school which it named in the EHC plan.
25. Y was already on the admission register at this school but stopped attending in January 2025 because Miss X decided to electively home educate him.
26. In early February, Miss X sent a report to the Council explaining how she intended to home educate Y.
27. The Council responded to this in early March. In considering Miss X’s EHE request, it noted evidence from Miss X and asked Y’s school to provide information about Y’s academic performance, abilities and social development. In response the school expressed Y was accessing age-appropriate curriculum there and was making good progress in line with his EHC plan.
28. The Council decided that Miss X’s education plan did not convince it that she could meet Y’s needs at home, nor reflect the ability level he was working at at school. It noted Miss X did not provide enough evidence to demonstrate:

• a robust and systematic approach to the teaching of literacy and numeracy or that learning is sequential;
• that education would be full time in nature;
• plans for progression or quantifiable evidence of Y’s progress; and
• how she would meet Y’s outcomes in his EHC plan and therefore meet the statutory duty of providing education to meet EHC plan needs.

29. The Council decided that EHE was not suitable at this time and he should continue to attend his named school.
30. Shortly after this, Miss X complained to the Council about its decision to refused EHE for Y. She expressed that she understood what was expected of her when home educating Y. She asked the Council to give consent to remove Y’s name from the admission register.
31. The Council responded to Miss X’s stage one complaint at the end of March. It did not uphold her complaint, giving the same reasons as in the refusal letter.
32. Miss X was unhappy with the Council’s complaint response and made a stage two complaint in mid-April.
33. The Council responded to Miss Y’s stage two complaint at the end of May. It repeated its reasoning for declining Miss X's EHE request. It also expressed that the guidance notes if a child is already attending a special school, under arrangements made by a council, the council’s consent is needed for the child’s name to be removed from the admission register. It noted that because Y was not attending school, the school would continue to follow its attendance policy.
34. In June, Miss X sent the Council another EHE parent report detailing how she was providing Y’s education.
35. The Council contacted Miss X in August 2025. It noted it had considered the parent report she sent in June 2025 but did not approve this, as noted in its previous correspondence to her.

Findings

36. At the annual review meeting held in November 2025, Miss X told the Council she wanted to EHE Y, and so wanted it to give permission for his name to be removed from the admission register of his special school. There is evidence the Council, at this meeting, explained the EHE process to Miss X and the requirement for her to demonstrate how she intended to do this. This was in line with the Council’s policy and there was no fault in its actions here.
37. Miss X then sent a formal EHE request to the Council in early 2025. I have considered the steps the Council took when refusing her request to remove Y’s name from the special school admission register. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether a complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
38. In reaching its decision, the Council took account of relevant guidance, information from the school, and the details provided by Miss X. It considered all the available information and clearly explained its reasons for not agreeing to her request. There is no fault in how it made the decision and I therefore cannot question whether that decision was right or wrong.
39. Miss X also complained the Council operated discriminatory practice in refusing all special educational needs children consent to be home educated. There is no evidence this is the case. The Council evidenced it discussed her wish to EHE at the annual review meeting and then considered Miss X’s request, rather than providing a blanket response and there was no fault in its actions here.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman