Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s child while she was out of school. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for her daughter while she was unable to attend school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X’s daughter has special educational needs and an Education Health and Care (EHC) plan. Ms X says her daughter was effectively out of school between September 2024 and May 2025 when she moved to a different educational setting. Ms X says her daughter was unable to attend the setting named in her EHC plan during this period.
6. Ms X complains that the Council ignored her requests for arrangements to be made for her daughter to receive education while she was out of school. She argues that the Council’s duty under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 applied and the Council failed to discharge it. In response to Ms X’s complaint, the Council has said it has considered the medical evidence Ms X provided in support of her concurrent appeal against the school named in the EHC plan, and has concluded that it did not amount to evidence that her daughter was unable to attend school. It therefore denies that the Section 19 duty was engaged.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. It is not for us to take a view on whether Ms X’s daughter was able to attend school and, if not, whether the Section 19 duty was engaged. These are matters for the Council. Rather, our role is to consider whether there is sufficient evidence of fault in the way it considered the matter and that this fault affected the outcome. There is no such evidence.
8. The Council has set out why it does not believe the Section 19 duty was engaged. That was a matter for the professional judgement of its officers. Ms X disagrees with this conclusion but that does not mean it amounts to fault. The Council’s position is proportionate and defensible in the circumstances of the case.
9. Without evidence of fault in the way a council has made a decision, the Ombudsman cannot question its merits, or intervene to substitute an alternative view. That is the case here.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman