Summary: We found there was delay in dealing with Miss X’s request for an Education Health and Care Plan for Y and issues with communication about the process. We also found the Council had failed to properly consider its Section 19 duty to provide an education. We recommended an apology and a payment to recognise the impact of the fault we identified.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains the Council:

• failed to adhere to the statutory timescales regarding an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment of her child, Y;
• failed to provide alternative education to Y when she became too unwell to attend school from September 2024; and
• failed to communicate effectively with Miss X.

2. Miss X said the matters caused her frustration and uncertainty. She wants the Council to improve its services.

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. 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

5. We are investigating the complaint from September 2024 until October 2025 when I understand the Council issued a final Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) which is now subject to an appeal.

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

Section 19 of The Education Act 1996

8. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that a 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

9. 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.
10. If a council wants to see medical or other evidence, it should ask for it at the earliest opportunity.
11. 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.
12. We publish good practice guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to identify and arrange alternative educational provision. Our Focus Report ‘Out of Sight’ made six recommendations for Councils:

• Consider the individual circumstances of each case and be aware the council may need to act, whatever the reason for absence. This applies even when a child is on a school roll.
• Consult all professionals involved in a child’s education and welfare and take account of the evidence when making decisions.
• Consider enforcing attendance where a child has a suitable school place and there is no medical or other reason that prevents them attending.
• Keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing their attendance if a child’s capacity to learn increases.
• Work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to mainstream education as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary.
• Put the chosen action into place without delay.

13. Where councils arrange for schools or other bodies to carry out functions on their behalf, the councils remain responsible. So, councils should retain oversight and control to ensure their duties are met.

Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) Timescales

14. Miss X made a request for an Education Health and Care Plan Needs Assessment on 20 November 2024. The Council agreed to assess Y for an EHC Plan on 31 December 2024.
15. On 10 January 2025 the Council wrote to Miss X explaining the next steps.
16. On 12 February the Council offered Miss X a remote/online Educational Psychology assessment. Miss X declined this as not appropriate.
17. On 4 March an Educational Psychology assessment was completed. This was not sent to the Council until 10 April.
18. The Council made a decision not to issue an EHC Plan on 14 May 2025. The Council’s letter set out how Miss X could appeal the Council’s decision if she wished to.
19. Miss X complained about the delay in carrying out the EHC Plan needs assessment in June 2025. She also complained about inadequate communication during the process.
20. The Council responded on 9 June. The Council accepted that there was delay in reaching a decision. It acknowledged the statutory timescales required it to reach a decision by 13 March, and it did not do so until 14 May. This was nine weeks later than required by statutory guidance. The Council upheld this element of the complaint and apologised.
21. The Council also accepted that, although it responded to some of Miss X’s contacts, it did not communicate about progress consistently or proactively. It recognised there was a prolonged period without updates in March/April 2025. The Council also upheld this element of the complaint and apologised.
22. Miss X escalated her complaint and stressed that the delay in the EHC process meant that Y had been out of school and unsupported for longer. The Council did not uphold this element of the complaint. I have considered the Council‘s comments within the next section of this statement.

Y’s attendance and education

23. Y’s attendance had been low since September 2024.
24. In November 2024 Miss X contacted the Council’s attendance team. She stated Y was distressed while at school and unable to attend for any length of time due to anxiety. She stated the school was marking her non-attendance as unauthorised. Because her attendance was unauthorised Miss X said the school would not provide work for her to do at home and she was not receiving any education.
25. The Council suggested Miss X worked with the school. It stated the school should provide an attendance action plan and it could put in place additional support and adjustments. The Council stated schools had a statutory responsibility to ensure pupils with medical conditions were properly supported but it stated the decision about how absences were recorded was the headteacher’s to make. The Council also provided links for support.
26. The Council says it also contacted the school to give advice. However, seemingly it did not establish how long Y had been absent from school. The Council did not provide evidence that the Council followed up Miss X’s concern that the school was not providing work for Y.
27. The Council told us that the school placed Y on a reduced timetable from 7 January 2025, with a proposed return date of 17 January 2025, due to mental health needs and anxiety.
28. At some point the Council provided a list of support it was providing to Y to help her attend. This included its reduced timetable. However, this did not result in a successful reintegration. At the end of January Miss X contacted the Council with further concerns about how the school was addressing Y’s absence from school. The school had sent her a notice to improve (attendance). Miss X said she had provided a GP letter to the school explaining Y was struggling to attend due to her mental health issues. She stated she had also applied for an EHC Plan, but the school was not acknowledging Y’s absence was due to her mental health. She believed it should do and it needed to support Y with her mental health issues.
29. In early February the Council reiterated that the decision about whether to authorise absence was the headteacher’s to make. It advised her to continue to engage with the school and any other professionals involved. At around the same time the attendance team spoke to the school and provided advice about support for Y. It suggested it followed the ‘support first’ model’, and that it make an Education Support for Medical Absence (ESMA) referral and put a desensitisation plan in place.
30. In early May Miss X told the attendance team, amongst other things that, due to her anxiety, Y was currently unable to leave the house. She made a second contact asking why alternative provision had not been made available. She told the Council the school had not communicated with her since March.
31. On 8 May the attendance team contacted the school, asking it to confirm why no alternative education had been provided. It noted the Council had previously given the school advice to follow and it asked if it had provided support to the family. The Council also noted Y’s absences exceeded 15 days so it should have been notified. It asked the Council to complete a 10-day and 15-day absence form immediately.
32. In late June 2025 the Council received an incomplete 15-day absence notification from the school. The Council says it was advised by the school that work had been sent home but they needed to check if this was continuing. The Council appears not to have followed this up to establish when work had been sent home and if it was continuing. The school’s response to the Council was not shared with us.
33. At the end of June Miss X told the Council Y was still signed off school medically and she had not had alternative education.
34. At the end of July, when investigating Miss X’s complaint, an officer noted there was no record the school had made an ESMA referral and it did not appear to be following procedures. The investigating officer sought advice from the attendance team. Miss X had said Y was unable to access school and she noted the SEND team’s involvement ended when the EHCP request was declined. She asked the attendance team what would happen in September; would they be actively working on Y’s case after the summer if she remained off school? In response, the attendance team recorded that was the school’s responsibility to submit a ’15 day illness form’. It noted the only submission had been the incomplete one in June. It stated Miss X should be directed to the school’s complaints procedure.
35. The Council followed up the incomplete absence form on 6 August 2025, advising the school that because Y had missed 15 days of school through illness, the school must immediately consider whether alternative education should be implemented. It asked the school to respond in September.
36. On 11 September Miss X raised again that Y was not in school. She stated no alternative education had been provided since November 2024 despite repeated requests. During September, work was being carried out on Y’s EHC Plan following a change of position by the Council. However, the Council’s records do not indicate further actions on alternative provision for Y prior to her EHC Plan being issued in October.
37. The Council told us there was no evidence on Council records of a sustained part‑time timetable being formally reviewed or a structured reintegration plan being successfully implemented. The Council noted it was not its role to directly design or manage reintegration plans.

What should have happened

38. The Council failed to deal with Miss X’s request for an Education Health and Care Plan within the timescales set out in statutory guidance. There was also a failure to communicate properly with Miss X about the process. This was fault.
39. In the meantime, the Council was aware that Y was absent from school in November 2024. At that time Miss X told the Council Y was not receiving an education because the school did not regard Y’s absence as authorised. At the end of January 2025 Miss X made further contact with the Council indicating Y was still out of school.
40. It seems evident that the Council considered, because Y was on roll at a school, the school was solely responsible for her education. While schools are responsible for providing education, if it is clear that a child is not receiving an education (whether or not they are on a school roll), the Council has a duty under Section 19 of the Education Act to provide one. From the outset, when Miss X raised concerns, the Council should have looked into the circumstances and assessed whether the school was providing a suitable education, given Y’s absence. While the Council did make contact with the school and gave it advice, it did not demonstrate that it gathered evidence about the circumstances or the education being received. It has not shown that it considered if its duties under Section 19 of the Education Act were engaged. The failure to properly consider its duties was fault by the Council.
41. The Council told us it was not its role to directly design or manage reintegration plans. However, the Council provided no evidence that it reviewed any part-time timetable or reintegration plan that was in place. It should have oversight of this to understand whether its duties are engaged.
42. The Council missed further opportunities to act. In May 2025 the Council established that Y had been absent for more than 15 days and it knew that it should have been notified of this in September 2024 when this first occurred. This, along with Miss X’s reports ought to have alerted the Council to potential issues. Then, when the Council received an incomplete form confirming Y’s 15 day absence in June, it was not followed up until August. In the meantime there is no indication that the Council took steps to understand whether work was being sent home and whether that was suitable. Indeed, when an officer questioned what was happening when dealing with Y’s complaint in July, she was advised to direct Miss X to the school’s complaint process. The Council ought to have been engaging with the school itself to understand the situation in view of its Section 19 duties.
43. It remains unclear what education the school was providing. However, based on the information we have seen I consider it is more likely than not that Y did not receive a suitable education between November 2024 and October 2025 (when our investigation ends).
44. Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 to £2,400 per term to acknowledge the harm caused by that loss. The figure should be based on the impact on the child and take account of factors such as their special educational needs, what (if any) education was provided in the period concerned and the significance of the period in their school career.
45. I have recommended that the Council apologises to Miss X and to Y and makes a payment based on £1,800 per term. This takes account of Y’s SEN and that, on balance, we found no suitable educational provision was made for her between November 2024 and October 2025 (three terms). The total payment recommended is therefore £5,400. This payment also takes account of the impact on Y’s wider family of the lack of education.
46. We decided a complaint earlier this month that made a similar finding; that there had been a lack of consideration given to the Council’s Section 19 duties. To remedy that complaint we recommended the Council devised an action plan to ensure, in future, it gives this proper consideration to those duties when it becomes aware a child is out of school. As a result of this, I have not made a service improvement recommendation in this case.

Back to top

Action

47. Within four weeks of my final decision, the Council should:
48. Send a written apology to Miss X and to Y for delays in dealing with the request for an Education Health and Care Plan and the failure to properly consider its Section 19 duty to provide education. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, in our Guidance on Remedy here.
49. To recognise the distress caused to Miss X for the delay in dealing with her request for an EHC Plan, the Council should pay her £100.
50. To recognise the loss of education Y suffered between November 2024 and October 2025, the Council should pay Miss X, for Y, £5,400.
51. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

52. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman