Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to put in place alternative educational provision for her son when he was unable to attend school due to anxiety. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council wrongly refused to put in place alternative educational provision for her son under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996. She says her son was unable to attend his mainstream school and because the Council failed to arrange suitable educational provision for him, she was forced to electively home educate him. She says this has caused stress and financial loss.

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 Mrs X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. The information I have seen shows the Council considered Mrs X’s request for alternative educational provision under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 but decided there were no good reasons to accept it. The decision is a matter of professional judgement and I have seen no evidence of fault in the way it was reached. We cannot therefore question it.
6. Mrs X later provided a letter from her son’s GP which she believes proved he was unable to attend school and that the Council therefore had a duty to arrange a suitable alternative for him. But before the Council could reconsider her request at its panel meeting Mrs X removed her child from the school and decided to educate him at home.
7. The law says that where a parent decides to electively home educate their child, the parents take on responsibility for arranging and financing suitable educational provision. The Council therefore no longer has a duty to make arrangements for the child including by way of alternative provision under Section 19.
8. When the Council reconsidered Mrs X’s request it therefore had no alternative but to refuse the request again. It explained to Mrs X in response to her complaint that had she not made the decision to electively home educate her son it would have considered the letter from her son’s GP, but because she had taken on responsibility for her son’s education it had no duty to provide any alternative provision.
9. I understand Mrs X is unhappy as she feels she was forced into electively home educating her son due to the lack of support provided by his school. But this does not alter the fact there was no fault by the Council in the way it considered her requests or allow us to recommend a remedy for the injustice she claims.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate this complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman