Summary: Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Y, with alternative provision when he could not attend school. She also complained the Council relied on misleading school records and it wrongly pursued safeguarding referrals when the threshold was not met. We find the Council was at fault for its delay in responding to Ms X’s stage two complaint. However, this fault did not cause Ms X a significant injustice.

The complaint

1. Ms X complained the Council failed to provide her son, Y, with alternative provision when he could not attend school. She also complained the Council relied on misleading school records and it wrongly pursued safeguarding referrals when the threshold was not met. Finally, Ms X says the Council failed to issue its stage two complaint response on time.
2. Ms X says the matter has caused distress and upset to the whole family. Y’s education and mental health have been adversely affected.

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. 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)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).
7. 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

How I considered this complaint

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

10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. 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.

Allegations against people who work with children

14. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) is a person responsible for managing and overseeing investigations into allegations that somebody who works with children has behaved in a way that may pose a risk to children.
15. All concerns reported to the LADO should be assessed to decide if the threshold for an allegation has been met. In cases where it is not clear whether the threshold has been met, it might be necessary to have a discussion (by phone or in a meeting) to evaluate whether the threshold is met.
16. If there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the allegation then it will be recorded as unsubstantiated.

Child in Need

17. Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 says councils must safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need.
18. When a council assesses a child as being in need, it supports them through a Child in Need plan. This should set clear, measurable outcomes for the child and expectations for their parent. Councils should review child in need plans regularly.

Attendance

19. 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.
20. Where a child’s attendance at school drops below a certain level, it is likely a council’s Education Attendance Officer (EAO) will become involved after a referral from the school. EAOs 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

21. This chronology provides an overview of key events in this case and does not detail everything that happened.
22. Y had an incident at school in February 2025. The school made a referral to the LADO about the incident. The referral said Y threw a teacher’s property over the fence. The staff member then called Y an inappropriate name. The school said it had investigated the incident and spoken to other children. It had invited Ms X in for a meeting, and the teacher and Y had apologised to each other. It said Ms X had now emailed it and said the teacher had grabbed Y multiple times and screamed at him. Another child had witnessed this.
23. The LADO had several telephone calls with the school about the incident. The school sent the LADO its investigation of the incident, and its emails between it and Ms X.
24. The LADO discussed the matter with the police. The LADO said they thought the concern was about staff conduct rather than an allegation of assault. The police agreed with the LADO’s view and said it did not need to take any further action.
25. The LADO contacted the school and asked it to update its initial investigation to consider the new allegations. It also said the school could get advice from HR.
26. The school contacted the LADO with its updated investigation. This investigation detailed differing accounts of the incident. The LADO decided the outcome was unsubstantiated, as there was insufficient evidence to prove or disprove what happened.
27. Ms X emailed the LADO in early March. She said the matter remained unresolved. The LADO responded and said it was not their role to investigate allegations or speak to parents. They said Ms X could follow the school’s complaints procedure if she was unhappy with its investigation.
28. Ms X contacted the Council in early April. She said she had temporarily withdrawn Y from school since March because of serious safeguarding concerns and a deterioration in Y’s mental health. She said the school had now offered a reintegration meeting for late April, but it had not offered any interim provision. She asked for advice on the next steps. The Council’s EAO responded two weeks later. She said the school had authorised Y’s absence. She said the next steps was to ensure a reintegration plan was in place.
29. Ms X attended the reintegration meeting with the school. The school agreed to contact the Emotional Based School Avoidance (EBSA) team. The team aims to support children who are experiencing EBSA.
30. Ms X sent a further email to the EAO in mid-May. She asked whether section 19 would apply in Y’s case.
31. The EAO responded and asked whether Ms X had evidence from a professional that Y could not attend school. She said it was positive the school was seeking EBSA support. She said there was a suitable education available for Y at the school, and he should attend with reasonable adjustments in place.
32. The EAO contacted an officer from the Council’s section 19 team about Y’s case in late May. She explained Y was waiting for the EBSA team to review the referral.
33. The EBSA team completed its review of the referral in early June. It decided Y’s anxiety was linked to the incidents at school and these needed to be addressed in the first instance. Therefore, officers from the team could not provide further support.
34. The school made a safeguarding referral to the Council’s social care department. It said Y had not attended school since March and Ms X was not engaging with welfare checks.
35. A social worker spoke to the school. She explained in the absence of safeguarding concerns, social care would not intervene. She told the school to follow the correct process around children missing education.
36. The school emailed the Council and provided it with an email from Y’s psychotherapist. The psychotherapist said Y was having psychotherapy, but she could not provide the details without consent from Y and his parents. The school asked the Council if it counted as medical evidence. The Council responded and said there was nothing in the email to suggest Y was unfit to attend school. It was not in dispute that Y was receiving psychotherapy.
37. Ms X contacted the Council in mid-June. She said she wanted it to provide Y with alternative provision.
38. The Council responded the following day and said it would explore the issues with the school and other professionals. It asked Ms X to provide it and the school with the health plan from Y’s GP and therapist. It also asked her to provide permission for the GP and therapist to share information with it and the school. It said it would provide its response within 15 days. Ms X responded and said she wanted clear details of what medical information it wanted, from whom, for what purpose and how the Council would use it.
39. The Council attended a multi-professional education exploration meeting with the school to discuss Ms X’s concerns about Y’s education. The school provided further information about the education it had offered Y and the reintegration plans.
40. The school sent the Council its proposed integration plan for Y. An officer from the Council’s EBSA team provided suggestions to the plan to include a more therapeutic approach for Y. The school implemented most of the recommendations.
41. The school made a further referral to social care the following week. It said it had tried to visit Ms X and Y at home to complete a welfare check but there was no answer.
42. The EBSA officer emailed another Council officer and explained the team could offer funding for some alternative provision for Y only if the family were willing to engage in the reintegration plan. This would bridge the gap between home and school.
43. The EBSA officer also emailed the school and discussed the funding for alternative provision.
44. The school responded and said Ms X had not responded to the reintegration plan. It also asked why EBSA support was available when Y had not previously met the threshold. The officer explained Y’s absence was not caused by EBSA difficulties. However, if the family engaged with the offer of alternative provision plus small steps into school, they would be engaging in the reintegration process.
45. The EAO responded and said it was better if EBSA support was offered as part of an attendance plan because of the breakdown in relationship between family and school.
46. The Council held a meeting to discuss the safeguarding referral. Professionals agreed the case met the threshold for a Child in Need assessment.
47. The EAO sent a letter to Ms X in late June. She said Ms X had a legal duty to ensure Y attended school. She said Ms X should work with the school to support Y to engage with the reintegration plan. If she was not satisfied with the school, she could apply for a place at another school or she could educate Y at home. She offered Ms X a meeting to discuss the situation.
48. A social worker spoke to Ms X about the safeguarding referral. She said the school had made the referral because of her complaint. She said she did not feel a Child in Need assessment was necessary. She would ask for support if she needed it.
49. Ms X sent a detailed response to the EAO’s letter. She said a home visit was premature because the Council had not responded to her section 19 referral. She said the reintegration plans were not appropriate for Y and did not meet his needs. The Council treated Ms X’s response as a complaint.
50. The Council sent a letter to Ms X the following day about her request for alternative provision. It said based on the available evidence the school was providing Y with a suitable education. It had not received permission for it or the school to liaise with Y’s GP or his private therapist. This limited its ability to work collaboratively with health professionals to ensure Y’s medical and therapeutic needs were fully supported in his educational setting.
51. Ms X provided a detailed response to the Council’s letter about Y’s education. She said the Council had accepted the school’s account. She also said the school had refused to apologise and conduct risk assessments. The Council had not responded to her questions about consent for Y’s medical information.
52. The section 19 officer had a telephone call with Ms X in mid-July. The officer sent Ms X an email with a note of the call. The note said the officer asked Ms X for permission to visit her. The purpose of the visit was to explore how the Council could support Y to ensure he could access education. The officer told Ms X the Council was unclear what the medical advice was surrounding Y’s needs at school. The officer offered for a teacher to meet with Y the following day at home or at a local library so they could understand his barriers to school attendance. The note states Ms X said she was open to meeting with the Council and the school to explore Y’s therapeutic integration plan. However, she did not want the Council to attend her home. She also agreed to provide permission for Y’s GP and therapist to share his medical information with the Council. She would discuss with Y whether he was happy for a teacher to meet with him.
53. The Council contacted Ms X’s GP and psychotherapist for information about Y.
54. Ms X strongly disagreed with the note of the call. She said she did not agree to the reintegration process, and it was premature given the unresolved harm and lack of risk assessments. She said she withdrew any consent for the Council to contact medical professionals. She also said officer had not explained what the role and purpose of the teacher was.
55. Ms X spoke to the social worker a couple of days later. She said the social worker could speak to Y’s psychotherapist.
56. The Council responded to Ms X’s complaint in late July. It acknowledged her position that Y would not return to the school without risk assessments being carried out and a formal acknowledgement of the trauma caused by the incident. However, the school had fully investigated the incident, and a LADO had decided it did not meet the threshold. It also said Y’s reintegration plan had been developed in collaboration with the EBSA team. It said to support its statutory duties, it wanted updated medical input to better understand Y’s barriers in attending school. Finally, it said its offer of a medical tuition tutor to support Y’s transition back to school was made in good faith and with the intention of providing immediate short-term support.
57. Y’s psychotherapist responded to the email the Council had sent before Ms X had withdrawn consent (paragraph 53). She sent the email to the Council’s medical tuition service, not the social worker. She said Y was receiving trauma informed therapy and he was making progress.
58. Ms X referred her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. She said Y stopped attending school in March, but the Council had not provided support until the end of the academic year. She also said the LADO relied on inaccurate information. She said the social worker had said she would close the case and there were no safeguarding concerns. However, the school then started contacting the social worker. The social worker said she was keeping the case open because the school was submitting referrals. This was unfair.
59. The social worker emailed Ms X in mid-August. She said while Y remained on roll at the school, the family remained open to children’s services. This meant professional meetings would continue to take place to discuss updated plans around Y’s education.
60. The Council issued its final response to Ms X’s complaint in late August. It said it had addressed majority of her concerns in its stage one response. It had reviewed the school’s account and the information she shared about the incident in February. The school included both parties’ version of events in its referral to the LADO.

Back to top

Analysis

Alternative provision

61. The Council was aware Y was not attending school in early April. However, the school had organised a reintegration meeting. Therefore, it was reasonable for the Council to wait for the outcome of that meeting and if the issues could be resolved before deciding whether to take any further action.
62. After the reintegration meeting took place, the school contacted the EBSA team. The section 19 team was aware of this. The Council was entitled to wait for the outcome of that referral and whether the team could provide Y with support.
63. Ms X asked for alternative provision not long after receiving the outcome from the EBSA team. The Council reviewed the request and arranged a meeting with the school. The school provided details of the support it had provided to Y. The EBSA team provided input on a reintegration plan for Y. The Council decided that, in the absence of any other evidence, the reintegration plan was appropriate for Y’s needs and that a suitable education was available for him at the school. That was down to the professional judgement of officers and not a decision I can criticise.
64. The Council was aware Y was seeing a psychotherapist. However, it did not consider that was enough to warrant alternative provision. The psychotherapist did not say Y was unfit to attend school.
65. Ms X says the reintegration plan did not meet Y’s therapeutic needs. The Council had a different view. It decided without input from the medical professionals in Y’s case stating the plan was unsuitable, it was appropriate for Y. It was entitled to take this view, even if Ms X strongly disagrees.
66. It is for unfortunate the Council did not respond to Ms X’s question about consent before it sent her the letter about her section 19 request. However, the Council had previously explained to Ms X why it wanted this information. The Council also provided further information Ms X in its stage one response about why it was requesting medical input and that it was willing to consider any advice from medical professionals. It was open to Ms X to provide the Council with further medical information to support Y’s non-attendance at school. As I have stated above, while it did have information from the psychotherapist, this was not sufficient to support Y’s non-attendance school.
67. Ms X says the school refused to apologise and put in place risk assessments from the incident in February. This was a barrier to Y attending school. The LADO decided the incident was unsubstantiated. Therefore, the Council did not consider an apology, or risk assessment was necessary. That was a decision it was entitled to take. I do not find fault.
68. Finally, Ms X says the Council agreed funding for alternative provision, but it failed to put it in place. The EBSA officer explained the team could offer funding for some alternative provision for Y if the family were willing to engage in the reintegration plan. The alternative provision was suggested as part of the reintegration plan only and if Ms X agreed to the plan. The Council did not consider it had a section 19 duty. However, as Ms X decided the plan was not suitable for Y, the Council did not proceed with the EBSA officer’s proposal.

The Council wrongly relied on misleading school records

69. Ms X says the school’s LADO referral was misleading, and it did not include Y’s voice and the accounts of other staff and children. The Council was wrong to rely on this.
70. The school provided its version of events in the LADO referral. However, it also included emails between it and Ms X. Ms X explained Y’s views of the incident in these emails. She also said other children had witnessed the incident, and they disputed the teacher’s account. The school told the LADO it had interviewed some children who had confirmed the physical altercation took place. Therefore, I am satisfied the LADO was aware of all parties’ views of the incident.
71. I appreciate Ms X strongly disagrees with the information the school provided to the LADO and has since made a request for the Council to rectify the information. However, I do not consider it was unreasonable for the LADO to rely on this information at the time before concluding the case.

The Council wrongly pursued safeguarding referrals

72. Ms X says the social worker told her there were no safeguarding concerns and she would close the case. However, despite this, the Council wrongly left the referral open. She says this was because of the school’s referrals.
73. Ms X has provided me with her notes of the calls with the social worker. In these notes, the social worker told Ms X she would close the case as there were no safeguarding concerns. However, the Council’s records of the calls do not corroborate Ms X’s version of events.
74. As I do have not have recording of the calls, I cannot, even on the balance of probabilities, form an independent view on what the social worker told Ms X.
75. I have reviewed the minutes of a multi-agency meeting in late July and the social worker’s email to Ms X. In the minutes of the meeting, the Council said it kept the case open because Y was not still attending school and the issues between home and school remained. The social worker repeated this in her email to Ms X. Even if the Council originally intended to close the case, it was entitled to change its view because the issues between Ms X/Y and the school were not resolved. That was down to the professional judgement of officers.

Delayed stage two complaint response

76. The Council should have issued its stage two response within 20 working days. Therefore, its response was due on 26 August. The Council responded on 29 August. While this is fault, I do not consider this minor delay caused Ms X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Decision

77. I have completed my investigation. There was fault by the Council, but this did not cause Ms X a significant injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman