Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council had failed to ensure the provision in her daughter, C’s Education, Health and Care Plan was in place and failed to ensure C received a full-time education when she was unable to attend school. Based on current evidence we have found some fault in the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and C, make a symbolic payment and review its procedures for the future.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that Suffolk County Council (the Council) in respect of her daughter C, failed to ensure that the provision in her Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan was in place since 12 May 2025 and failed to ensure a full-time suitable education was in place from November 2024 when C struggled to attend school. Mrs B says this has caused C to miss out on essential education and support and significant distress to her.

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. 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

4. I have investigated the period from November 2024 when Mrs B requested section 19 provision for C, up to 9 October 2025, when we decided to consider the complaint.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
7. 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

What I found

Special educational needs

8. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an 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 including Section F which details the special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
10. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
11. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

Section 19 duty

12. 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.
13. 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.
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.
15. If a child has an EHC Plan the council also has an ongoing duty to arrange the support guaranteed by the Plan. However, this might not always be possible, such as where the SEN support is designed for the child’s normal classroom setting.
16. Councils should also think about the steps needed to reintegrate the child back into their usual school setting, through ongoing conversations with relevant professionals and the parents.

What happened

17. Mrs B’s daughter has health conditions and has difficulty attending school on a full-time basis. Mrs B first contacted the Council about this in December 2023. In November 2024 C’s attendance had dropped significantly to approximately 50%. On 6 November Mrs B formally requested the Council provide alternative full-time education. She was at a key period in her education.
18. Mrs B chased the Council twice, but it did not respond. She also requested an EHC needs assessment and copied the Council in to emails to the school about C’s attendance. In mid-December 2024 the Council agreed to carry out the assessment and in February 2025, to issue a draft EHC Plan, which it did on 20 March. Following comments and additional information from Mrs B, the Council issued a second draft on 11 April.
19. In the meantime, Mrs B received a response from the Council on 20 March 2025 referenced as a ‘further stage one complaint response’. It said Mrs B had declined support from the Alternative Tuition Service (ATS) and that the iRobot (a device allowing a child to access lessons outside the classroom) was not suitable for use in all schools so a meeting with the school would be the best way forward.
20. Mrs B replied saying she declined the tuition because it was not a suitable full-time education for C due to the number and level of exams she was hoping to get. It consisted of only one lesson of English and Maths once a week.
21. The Council said it was arranging a meeting with the school towards the end of April. Mrs B questioned the purpose of the meeting given that in her view the school had said it could not provide any more for C. There is no record of the meeting going ahead in respect of alternative provision.
22. Following a co-production meeting with Mrs B and the school, the Council sent out the final EHC Plan on 12 May 2025.
23. In June 2025 Mrs B complained that the school was not making the provision specified in the EHC plan and that the Council had not ensured C was receiving a full-time education. She said ATS was in place (since May 2025) offering 45 minutes in English and Maths once a week. But it was not enough. She requested the Council find alternative providers in a wider range of subjects.
24. On 3 July she again complained about both these issues. On 11 July the Council spoke to Mrs B about her complaints. Mrs B said that C was attending school in the afternoons only which amounted to one 90-minute lesson, but she felt the school was being unhelpful. She said C was unlikely to be able to access learning online. The Council agreed to contact the school to see if it had requested support from the Special Educational Services (SES) to support the section F provision.
25. On 14 July the Council responded to Mrs B’s complaint about the failure to provide the section F support. It said guidance had been provided to staff, the educational psychologist (EP) was due to work with staff supporting C in early September and the Council would contact her in due course about the lack of a key worker at school.
26. On 17 July the Council held a professionals meeting to discuss the case. They said ATS would step back now that the EHC Plan was finalised, and family services involved. They also considered that tutors were not likely to be successful due to C’s high academic level and range of subjects. It again mentioned the iRobot but accepted the school needed to agree as it could only be used in school not at home. The school was hopeful that C’s attendance would improve now the right provision was being put in place to enable C to access lessons.
27. On 6 August Mrs B’s advocate complained about the lack of alternative provision and the failure to implement the section F provision. They highlighted the inappropriateness of removing ATS simply because C now had an EHC Plan.
28. The Council held two further internal meetings including ATS. It noted C was attending in the afternoons and leaving straight afterwards. She attended all subject lessons held in the afternoons.
29. The Council refused to consider the complaint at stage two of its procedure, saying it had nothing more to add to its first response.
30. On 3 September the school informed Mrs B that ATS tuition was being arranged and it was looking into the iRobot. On 11 September the Council met with Mrs B and her advocate. The Council agreed to start an early phase transfer review of the EHC Plan, write a reintegration plan for C, request a sensory assessment and liaise with the school about exam arrangements and the need for C to be accompanied when she had to leave the class for health reasons.
31. On 16 September the Council contacted the School to request an exam room on her own for exams in November to say it would provide a summary of needs in the form of a reintegration plan for all her teachers and to ask if a different room could be used for her safe space. The School replied saying that it let everything was in place and C’s attendance was 95%. The Council competed the reintegration plan that day and sent it out. On 19 September ATS confirmed the iRobot had been in place since the beginning of September for whenever C needed it and a teacher was supporting her with catch-up lessons once a week and had provided a room on her own for the exams.
32. In a telephone call with the Council on 23 September, Mrs B confirmed the ATS tuition was now in place but had been slightly delayed, she disagreed with the content of the EHC Plan and felt it had been changed so the school could say it was meeting C’s needs, she said C needed someone to support her in class and had been advised the class teacher was doing this. Mrs B questioned whether the teacher could do this properly with all the other children. She confirmed C had been provided with a teaching assistant for support
33. Mrs B complained to us. Although C’s attendance was initially good, by the end of September she was struggling to attend. Mrs B again complained about the failure to provide the support in the EHC Plan or put full-time alternative provision in place.
34. On 3 October the Council responded saying that ATS were supporting C in three ways:
• by provision of technology to enable C to access her lessons in school via remote access which had been in place since the beginning of September 2025;
• a dedicated teacher supporting with catch-up lessons since the beginning of September 2025; and
• by providing C with her own space to take mock and formal exams
35. In addition the school was also providing the following in line with section F of the EHC Plan:
• The reintegration plan had been shared and was waiting for C’s input before being shared with teachers.
• The EP had met with all the relevant teachers at the start of term and was creating an information sheet which had not yet been shared with the school.
• The school had liaised with SES for support.
• A review of the provision would take place during the review.
• The school said it can meet the required provision.
36. We decided to consider the complaint on 9 October 2025. This is the end point of my investigation. I have provided the following information about more recent events for context.
37. In mid-October 2025 the annual review was held. The report shows that the school was satisfied it had implemented the provision but felt that C was not always accessing the resources available to her when she was in school and her low attendance was a barrier to providing all the support. Mrs B disagreed and maintained that the provision was not in place.
38. In November 2025 C’s caseworker made referrals to several tuition providers but they could not provide tutors for C.
39. In December 2025 SES was satisfied that the section F provision was in place in school. Mrs B disagreed.
40. In February 2026 some extra tuition for C started at school. This was extended to 15 June to cover the exam period.
41. In its response to my enquiries the Council said that ATS provision of 1:1 tuition for 1.5 hours a week had been in place since May 2025. It said C had the option of group lessons and an online platform but had not engaged with these options. It said the school had provided work on its online portal since summer 2025 and had investigated the use of the iRobot but Mrs B had felt this was not appropriate.

Findings

Alternative provision

42. C’s attendance at school from September 2024 to November 2025 was approximately 50%. The Council was aware of the low attendance from 6 November 2024 as Mrs B made a formal request for section 19 alternative provision along with a request for an EHC needs assessment.
43. I accept C was attending school throughout this period and receiving some education. But she was not attending full-time and she was not receiving a full-time education even though she was academically able and projected to achieve very good exam results across all subjects. I have not seen any evidence throughout the whole period of my investigation from November 2024 to October 2025 that the Council considered whether the education C was receiving was suitable and accessible or whether section 19 provision was appropriate. This was fault.
44. The Council has said that ATS provision was in place for 1.5 hours a week from May 2025 and that more provision was offered but declined in September 2025. However, the additional elements appear to be online and group lessons which were not suitable for C, and I have not seen any discussion around why the offer was considered by the Council to be suitable, accessible and equivalent to full-time. This was fault.
45. As the Council started looking for tutors in November 2025 and put some in place in February 2026, it appears that the Council did not consider the offer was sufficient. C has successfully engaged with the extra tuition provided in school since February 2026 and I see no reason why this could not have been provided at an earlier point.
46. C received no additional education (on top of her attendance at school) between November 2024 and May 2025 (approximately 1.5 terms) and then 1.5 hours a week from May 2025 to October 2025 (again approximately 1.5 terms). This meant she missed out on essential education in the key period leading up to her exams. Mrs B has been caused uncertainty as to whether earlier provision could have helped C and frustration at having to make the same complaint multiple times.

Section F provision

47. Mrs B complained about a month after the final EHC Plan had been issued, that the school had not put in place all the provision detailed in section F. There is some evidence that between 12 May 2025 and the end of the summer term in July 2025 that not all the provision was in place. The professionals meeting on 17 July 2025 discussed measures the school was planning for September such as the EP training, key worker support and the iRobot. This suggests not everything was in place prior to this. This was fault which meant C missed out on essential support at school and Mrs B was caused uncertainty and frustration.
48. There is conflicting evidence from Mrs B and the school about the period between the beginning of September and 9 October 2025. At the annual review in mid-October there is some evidence that the provision was in place when C was in school and that C was engaging in lessons well. SES also confirmed in December 2025 that the support was in place. But Mrs B disagreed and continues to disagree.
49. The annual review report gives a comprehensive assessment of C’s progress at school including access to and engagement with support, which suggest that the majority of the support was in place for this period when C was in school. This was backed up by the SES service. Mrs B confirmed on 23 September that ATS was in place, C had access to a teaching assistant, and the class teachers had been trained in her support needs.
50. From the evidence provided, I consider most of the support detailed in Section F was in place for this five-week period at the start of the 2025/26 academic year.

Back to top

Action

51. In recognition of the injustice caused to C and Mrs B, I recommended the Council within one month of the date of my final decision:
• Apologises to C and Mrs B and makes a symbolic payment of £2250 made up as follows: 1.5 terms (Nov 24 to Apr 25) @£1000 per term and 1.5 terms (May to Oct 25) @£500 per term.
52. I also recommended within three months the Council reviews its procedures for responding to children absent from school and not receiving a full-time education, to ensure all cases are considered in respect of the section 19 duty as soon as possible and then reviewed at appropriate intervals.
53. The Council has agreed to the recommendations and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

54. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman