Summary: We upheld Mrs B’s complaints about the Council’s education service. The Council delayed issuing her daughter with an Education, Health and Care Plan and communicated poorly with Mrs B. It also failed to address C’s need for education when, over many months, her attendance at school fell and then stopped. These faults contributed to C losing education provision, which caused injustice to her. The Council has accepted these findings and agreed to take action to remedy the injustice and improve its service.

The complaint

1. Mrs B made two complaints, both of which concerned the education service provided by the Council for her daughter C, who has special educational needs.
2. Mrs B’s first complaint, made to this office in September 2025, was that the Council took too long to agree to assess C’s education, health and care needs. It then further delayed in issuing her with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. Mrs B also said the Council communicated poorly with her during this time.
3. Mrs B’s second complaint, made to this office in December 2025, was that the Council failed to ensure C had access to a suitable education. This included the Council failing to provide education for C other than at school, despite promising to do so.
4. Mrs B said C went without education for many months, meaning her educational needs increased. Mrs B also said the events covered by these complaints had negative impacts on her employment, health and marriage.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

5. 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)
6. The Ombudsman’s view, based on caselaw, is that ‘service failure’ is an objective, factual question about what happened. A finding of service failure does not imply blame, intent or bad faith by the council. There may be circumstances where we decide service failure has occurred and caused an injustice to the complainant despite the best efforts of the council. This still amounts to fault. (see R (on the application of ER) v CLA (LGO) [2014] EWCA civ 1407) 
7. 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)
8. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
9. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
10. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions about special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
11. If 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)
12. 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 did and did not investigate

13. I investigated all of Mrs B’s first complaint. The events covered by this complaint began in November 2024, when C’s school first asked the Council to assess her education, health and care needs. The events ended in November 2025 when the Council issued C with an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan.
14. But I decided my investigation of Mrs B’s second complaint could only cover the period between July 2024 and November 2025. I understood C stopped attending school full-time around October 2023. I decided I could not investigate events between then and June 2024 because of the limits on us investigating late complaints (see paragraph 8 above). This was relevant as Mrs B did not contact us with her complaint until December 2025. I needed good reasons therefore to investigate events more than 12 months previously; i.e. before December 2024.
15. I noted that from July 2024 the Council knew of concern about C missing education. Around that time, C’s school began making service requests of the Council, on Mrs B and C’s behalf, about that concern. In these circumstances, I did not think it fair to Mrs B to limit my investigation only to events from December 2024. It was reasonable I considered how the Council responded to those service requests as part of my investigation.
16. This was because I considered it was for the individual to decide at what point the Council had had enough time to respond to service requests and therefore when to complain. In this case, I found Mrs B’s patience with the Council began to wane in early 2025. Her concern at that point was that the Council did not act with enough urgency to provide C with education to meet her needs. So, this invited me to consider what action the Council took, or failed to take, in the previous months.
17. However, I did not find good reason to extend the investigation to events before July 2024. When C began struggling with school attendance, in October 2023, I understood the school worked with Mrs B to try and resolve this. I found no evidence Mrs B specifically requested any involvement from the Council in C’s case during the October 2023 to June 2024 period. Nor did she complain about any involvement it had in C’s case in that time.
18. The end date for my second investigation was November 2025 as this was when the Council issued C with an EHC Plan. So, a new chapter in her education began.
19. If Mrs B had any concern with the content of the Plan, then that was something she could have appealed to the Tribunal. So, it was not something I could investigate for the reasons set out in paragraph 9.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

20. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
21. I gave Mrs B and the Council a draft version of this statement to comment on. I took account of any comments they made, or further evidence they provided, before putting the statement in its final format.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Education, Health and Care needs assessments and plans

22. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an EHC Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs, and the arrangements made to meet them.
23. The Government publishes statutory guidance for councils called: ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’). This sets out the steps councils must follow when carrying out education, health and care (EHC) assessments and in producing EHC Plans. The guidance takes account of the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014. Of relevance to these investigations, it says the following: 

• when the council receives a request for an EHC needs assessment it must decide whether to agree to the assessment and send its decision to the parent of the child within six weeks; 
• if the council decides not to conduct an EHC needs assessment it must give the child’s parent information about their right to appeal to the Tribunal;
• the council must also give a child’s parents information about mediation. This is an informal way for parents to try and resolve disputes about decisions which they can appeal to the Tribunal. Parents must consider mediation and get a ‘mediation certificate’ before they can appeal;
• if a parent appeals the Council’s refusal to carry out an EHC needs assessment and the Tribunal upholds their appeal, the council has 14 weeks to complete its assessment;
• otherwise, the Council should take no longer than 20 weeks to produce a final EHC Plan from the date it receives an assessment request.

24. As part of an EHC assessment, the council must gather advice from relevant professionals (SEND Regulation 6(1)). This includes psychological advice and information from an Educational Psychologist (EP). Once consulted, an EP has a maximum six weeks to provide the advice. 

Alternative Provision

25. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says a council must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds a child cannot attend school because of:

• a permanent exclusion;
• an illness; or
• for any other reason making school inaccessible to the child.

26. The alternative educational provision must be suitable for the child given their age, ability and aptitude. This includes taking account of any special educational needs they have.
27. If a council discovers a child’s prolonged absence from school, it should find out why this is. It should consider 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.
28. Councils should consider any efforts made by the school to support the child. This might include 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.
29. We publish good practice guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to identify and arrange alternative educational provision: Supporting children out of school (October 2025)
30. Our guidance includes that councils should:

• consider all the reasons for a child’s absence from school, and make a written evidence-based decision about whether it will arrange alternative education provision;
• communicate this decision to parents;
• ensure any alternative education provision meets the individual needs of the child. It should explain its reasons for providing a part-time education if it decides the child cannot cope with full-time provision.

31. Where councils arrange for schools or other bodies to carry out their functions on their behalf, the council remains responsible. So, the council should retain oversight to ensure it fulfils its legal duties.
32. Government guidance (‘Working together to improve school attendance’) states all pupils of compulsory school age have an entitlement to a full-time education. In exceptional circumstances there may be a need for a temporary part-time timetable to meet a pupil’s individual needs. For example, where a medical condition prevents a pupil from attending full-time education and a part-time timetable forms part of a re-integration package. But schools and councils should not consider a part-time timetable a long-term solution.

The key facts

33. C is a child of primary school age, who has special educational needs. In September 2023 she entered Year 1 of her education, attending a mainstream primary school.
34. In October 2023, C’s attendance at school began to decline. Mrs B told me that over the following months the school tried various approaches to encourage C back into education. This included putting her on a part-time timetable, providing one-to-one lessons and exploring alternative education providers.
35. In July 2024, the Council education service and C’s school corresponded about her case. The Council sent an email to C’s school which asked it to provide a “costed plan” so C could attend alternative education provision. The Council implied it wanted C to remain on the school roll, as it said it wanted her placement at the school to work.
36. Mrs B told me the alternative education providers approached only completed limited work with C or found they could not meet her needs. In November 2024, the school contacted the Council asking that it carry out an EHC assessment of C’s needs. I have not seen the documents it presented with its request. But I have seen an email it sent the following month. In this, the school said it had liaised with the Council’s ‘education outreach’ service and held a ‘Team Around the Child’ meeting to consider C’s case, although it did not say when this was. It also said it had asked for, but not received, support from the Council’s autism outreach team and failed to contact its inclusion advice line despite making attempts to do so. The email also confirmed C had accessed alternative provision, but the provider could not meet her needs.
37. In December 2024, four weeks after the school made its request, the Council declined to complete an EHC assessment of C’s needs. It said that while it accepted C had special educational needs, it considered she did not require an EHC Plan for her to access suitable education.
38. The Council sent its decision as C’s school closed for the Christmas break. Mrs B said she was particularly upset at the timing of the decision and that it overshadowed the holiday period causing her distress.
39. Despite the timing of the decision, C’s school sent the email mentioned in paragraph 36 before Christmas, questioning the Council’s decision. And in early January 2025 the Council received notice that Mrs B wanted to go to mediation.
40. Then around 10 days later, in mid-January 2025 the Council changed its position and said it would now assess C’s needs.
41. In early February 2025 it referred C’s case to its EP service for advice. When, later that month, Mrs B asked the Council to update her on progress it told her the EP service had delays.
42. In April and May 2025, Mrs B asked the Council for further updates. In mid-May 2025 the Council advised her of continuing delay in the EP service. By around mid-February 2025, C had stopped attending school.
43. The Council received EP advice in June 2025. And later that month its specialist panel agreed that C should have an EHC Plan. It sent a draft version of the Plan to Mrs B for her comments in early July. By this time Mrs B had expressed her preference, that C receive education other than in school (EOTAS).
44. By August 2025 Mrs B had received a first reply to her second complaint (see below) about the lack of education provision C received. In its response the Council had said it would provide C with “an interim EOTAS package […] until a school place is confirmed”.
45. Emails show this reply caused some confusion for the case officer progressing C’s EHC Plan, as she did not know who had responsibility for arranging the EOTAS provision. Meanwhile, the officer had consulted both C’s current school and local catchment primary school, neither of which said it could meet her needs. The officer told Mrs B the Council would go on to consult specialist schools. They told her the Council would only agree to name EOTAS provision in C’s Plan, if no school said it could meet her needs.
46. Over the next two months the Council chased replies to its consultations. No specialist school said it could meet C’s needs either. At the same time, it discussed with Mrs B what she wanted EOTAS provision to look like for C. Mrs B provided a suggested timetable as a basis for discussion. This proposed around 15 hours provision a week split between one-to-one tuition, some therapeutic provision and other activities. Before the end of October, the Council told Mrs B that it had “agreed in principle” to name EOTAS on C’s Plan.
47. However, it was not until the end of November 2025, 53 weeks after C’s school first asked for an assessment, the Council issued her with a final EHC Plan.

Mrs B’s complaints

48. Mrs B made her first complaint in May 2025, unhappy at how long the Council took to complete its assessment of C’s education, health and care needs.
49. The Council replied the same month and apologised for the delay. It explained there was a high demand for such assessments, and it had a shortage of EPs.
50. Mrs B remained unhappy with the delay and escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaint procedure the next month. The Council replied in late July. It said it was unfortunate Mrs B had not received more updates on the progress of the assessment and delay in completing the EP assessment. It provided more detail about the pressure on its service caused by increased demand. But it noted it had now issued a draft EHC Plan and believed its case officer kept in regular touch with Mrs B.
51. The following month Mrs B made a second complaint about how long C had been without full time education.
52. In its first reply sent later that month the Council explained that it was consulting schools to try and find suitable schooling for C. It expressed concern Mrs B still waited for a final EHC Plan. This is when it committed to provide C with some “interim EOTAS” provision (see paragraph 44).
53. Mrs B escalated this complaint also and received her final reply from the Council in November 2025, just after it issued C with an EHC Plan. It set out its understanding of the efforts made by C’s school to support her education. But recognised C had been without any education since February 2025. It said C’s Plan contained a bespoke EOTAS package moving forward, but recognised the Council was late in issuing it. In recognition of its failings, the Council offered Mrs B a symbolic payment of £3800. This comprised £3600 in recognition of the time C did not have education provision and £200 for Mrs B’s time and trouble in making her complaint.

My findings

The complaint about delay by the Council in completing the EHC assessment and in issuing an EHC Plan

54. The Council did not dispute it delayed in issuing C’s EHC Plan. However, I considered its replies to Mrs B’s complaint did not set out the extent of its delay. I found this was around 33 weeks.
55. I was not clear the Council understood this. Some of its correspondence suggested it calculated it had 14 weeks from when it agreed to complete an EHC assessment in mid-January 2025. But the 14-week timeframe only applies where a parent has appealed a decision by the Council to refuse to assess and:

• the Tribunal has either upheld their appeal; or
• both parties have agreed to a consent order, where the Council agrees to assess.

56. Neither circumstance applied here, as the Council conceded the need to assess C’s needs before Mrs B appealed. It therefore had 20 weeks to complete its assessment from the date C’s school first asked it to complete an EHC assessment.
57. I did not find this confusion contributed significantly to the overall delay in completing C’s assessment. But I wanted to ensure the Council briefed its officers on what they should do in these circumstances. The Council accepted a recommendation I made, designed to address this situation. I set out the details of this in the ‘agreed action’ section below.
58. I found also there were two far more significant causes of delay in this case. The first was the delay in the Council receiving EP advice.
59. I considered that, in the circumstances the Council found itself in, with high demand for its service and not enough EPs, this delay was unavoidable. But it was still a service failing the Council could not obtain the advice it needed sooner. So, even if this had been the only delay in this case, I would have found fault.
60. The next cause of delay was that it took the Council around six months to issue C’s Plan after receiving EP advice. Around five months of this was the time taken to progress C’s EHC Plan from draft to final format.
61. I considered some of this delay was avoidable. I noted the Council staggered its consultations between mainstream and specialist schools. I could see no good reason for this, especially given the delay in completing the EHC assessment. It also took around three months for the Council to agree the detail of C’s EOTAS package, which delayed that education provision for her.
62. The overall delay led me to find fault with the Council. I found that it caused Mrs B distress and contributed to C not having education provision to meet her needs for at least six months longer than should have been the case. This was an injustice to them both. I recommended action I wanted the Council to take to remedy this injustice, which it agreed to. I set this out in the ‘agreed action’ section below.

The complaint about communication failings

63. I noted first Mrs B was particularly upset at the timing of the Council’s decision refusing an EHC assessment of C’s needs. I recognised this overshadowed the Christmas holiday period in 2024. So, the timing of the decision compounded the upset caused by its content. But the Council will sometimes make decisions in the run-up to a weekend or a holiday period, which means the person receiving the decision cannot discuss it nor challenge it straight away. This is unfortunate but it is not fault for the Council to issue a decision when it is ready to do so.
64. However, once the Council agreed to assess C, I found there were some significant communication failings that justified a finding of fault. First, it failed to advise Mrs B how long the EHC assessment might take. The Council must have known of the delays in the EP service in January 2025. There was no reason it could not have told Mrs B about those delays and how long the assessment was therefore likely to take.
65. Second, with the assessment having begun the Council did not keep in any regular contact with Mrs B until she complained. Meanwhile, she had to contact the Council to find out what stage its assessment had reached. I considered the Council should keep parents informed during an EHC assessment, especially of any delay.
66. During this investigation the Council told me it had changed its practice here. It now has a dedicated page on its website which explains waiting times for it to complete assessments and EHC Plans. It told me it signposts parents to this at the beginning of the assessment process.
67. The third communication failing centred on the Council’s promise to provide C with some “interim” EOTAS provision in August 2025. This caused avoidable confusion. I considered what the Council meant to say was that it would try and identify some alternative provision for C immediately, even if it went on to name a school in her final EHC Plan. But it muddied the waters by making a reference to “EOTAS” provision which Mrs B wanted named in the Plan. It should have made a clearer distinction between how it intended to meet C’s short-term and longer-term education needs.
68. The confusion then became compounded by poor internal communications. The case officer progressing C’s Plan had no instruction or advice on how the Council proposed to put this commitment into practice. This meant the Council did not make any short-term provision for C despite its commitment to do so.
69. These communication failings added to Mrs B’s distress and contributed to the Council’s failure to secure education provision for C. This contributed further to the injustice identified in paragraph 62.

The complaint about a failure to make education provision

70. In considering Mrs B’s second complaint, I consulted the Council’s ‘Section 19’ policy, available online. This sets out its approach towards making such provision. The policy explains the approach taken for pupils in different situations; for example, those excluded from education, those absent because of illness and those with EHC Plans who have a “health-related” absence. No section specifically refers to a pupil in C’s situation; one absent for reasons related to their special educational needs but who does not have an EHC Plan.
71. However, the policy explains some general common principles. That the Council expects schools to take the initiative first and explore ways to support pupils to reintegrate into school when they begin to experience periods of absence. For example, through use of part-time timetables and support from specialist teams within the education service (such as the autism outreach service). It makes clear the Council has responsibility to ensure a child receives alternative provision when needed. And the starting presumption is that any alternative provision should be full-time or equivalent, unless a child’s needs make that unsuitable.
72. It explains for most pupils, the decision-making body which decides on provision is a multi-disciplinary panel made up of education, social work and health professionals. However, for pupils with EHC Plans, the policy requires schools to notify the SEND team and says: “any arrangements for alternative provision must be made in consultation with the SEND Team”.
73. As it stands therefore, I consider the policy could benefit from greater clarity:

• to explain which team within the education service considers the needs of pupils for section 19 provision who have an absence related to having special educational needs, but who do not have an EHC Plan;
• to explain how it will decide on alternative provision for all pupils with special educational needs given that it explains the role of the SEND Team as being consultative only.

74. I am conscious this policy only took effect during 2025 and so did not apply during all the events covered by this complaint. But its relevance should have been clear from Spring 2025 onward. The Council should have taken the initiative then to try and secure some provision for C, even if only short-term while the EHC assessment completed. But I found no evidence it appreciated the need to address C’s lack of provision even while its protracted assessment of her needs continued.
75. And even without this policy in force, I considered it must have been clear to the Council, by around July 2024, that C and her school needed support in securing education provision for her. By then C had missed a significant portion of her education for nearly a whole school year. This was despite the school taking steps, in line with the Council’s expectations, to try and meet her needs and support her reintegration. By December 2024 the Council also knew the school’s own efforts to find alternative provision had failed and the reasons for that.
76. I considered it fault therefore that between July 2024 and November 2025 the Council did not do more to secure education provision for C. I recognised there was some evidence of involvement by Council education services in discussion of C’s need for provision before December 2024 (from the school’s email of that date). So, the fault was arguably not as great up to that time. But overall, there was inadequate evidence to show the Council had properly considered if it needed to make provision for C, throughout this time.
77. This caused injustice to C as she lost provision she should have received. I also accepted Mrs B’s statements that C’s prolonged absence from education could make it harder for C to reintegrate into school. I accepted too that while C did not access education that put Mrs B under considerable pressure.
78. However, I did not think it possible to distinguish the impact of C’s special educational needs on Mrs B’s circumstances, from the impact of how the Council responded to those needs. For example, I think it likely that C’s absences from school, caused by her needs would always have affected Mrs B’s ability to stay in employment, even if the Council had not acted with fault. That said, I recognised the Council’s response to her situation caused Mrs B’s distress and so contributed to her injustice.

Back to top

Agreed Action

79. Paragraphs 62, 69 and 78 set out where I consider fault by the Council caused injustice to Mrs B and C. That injustice overlaps, because the Council’s failure to provide C with a timely EHC Plan and its failure to try and identify some alternative provision she could access occurred at the same time.
80. The Council agreed that within 20 working days of this decision, it will:
1. offer a further apology to Mrs B accepting the findings of this investigation. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council will consider this guidance when making its apology;
2. make a symbolic payment to Mrs B of £2775. I set out how I calculated this payment in paragraphs 81 to 83.
81. When recommending the symbolic payment I considered the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. This suggests that where a child has lost education provision because of fault by the Council, we should adopt a tariff approach using a figure of between £900 and £2400 for each school term impacted. To decide the sum, we will consider:

• the age of the child;
• if the loss of provision was in whole or in part;
• whether it is likely but for the fault the child would have accessed full-time provision;
• the impact also on the child’s parent who complains.

82. In this case I took account that:

• C was in her early primary years;
• she had limited access to education between July 2024 and February 2025 but none after that to the end of November 2025;
• the evidence suggested she could not access full-time provision. Mrs B suggested in September 2025 that she might cope with around 15 hours a week provision;
• Mrs B experienced distress because of C’s absence from education.

83. I considered a sum of £1500 a term should apply for the period July 2024 to February 2025 (equivalent therefore to a term and a half). While the sum £1750 a term should apply for the period February 2025 to November 2025 (equivalent therefore to one whole term, one half term and one two thirds of a term). C had no access to education between February and November 2025 and so had a greater injustice for this period. That equated therefore to totals of £2250 plus £4075 equalling £6325. To this I added £250 for the distress caused solely by the Council’s poor communications with Mrs B, giving an overall total of £6575. From this, I then took away the £3800 the Council previously offered to Mrs B on the understanding she accepted it, which left £2775.
84. In addition to this personal remedy for Mrs B, I wanted the Council to also learn lessons from her complaint. During the investigation the Council made me aware of an action plan it has in place to tackle the deficiencies in its education psychology service. There was no benefit therefore in recommending anything further specific to that issue. I also welcomed that it now gave parents information on waiting times when undertaking EHC needs assessments and completing EHC Plans.
85. However, I considered the Council could benefit from reflecting on both its approach to the timescale it had to complete its EHC assessment in C’s case and the delays once it had produced a draft EHC Plan. This in turn brought into focus its approach to making Section 19 provision. I noted the Council only introduced its current policy during the time covered by this complaint. However, as I set out above, I had concerns at gaps in that policy, and that the Council did not appear to have considered its content during the events covered by this complaint (nor any previous version of the policy it may have had in force). So, its consideration of assessing C’s needs and drawing up an EHC Plan, operated independently from any consideration of her pressing need to have some access to education even while that assessment and planning continued.
86. The Council agreed therefore that within three months of this decision, it will:
1. brief its caseworkers on the correct timescales to follow when the Council decides to undertake an EHC assessment following an initial refusal;
2. consider amending its Section 19 policy to address the concerns set out in paragraph 73 and write to tell us of any action it has decided to take as a result. It will also brief SEN caseworkers to ensure they know what to do to address the immediate education needs of a child out of school (or with access to less than full-time education) if that child has no EHC Plan is under assessment for a Plan. That briefing should refer to its existing Section 19 policy and any amendments made as a result of this investigation. The briefing can be in person or in writing at the Council’s discretion.
87. The Council has agreed to provide us with evidence when it has complied with the agreed actions in paragraphs 80 and 86.

Back to top

Final Decision

88. For reasons set out above I upheld this complaint finding fault by the Council caused injustice to Mrs B and C. The Council agreed to take action that I considered would remedy that injustice. So, I completed my investigation satisfied with its response.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman