Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to provide education when Ms X’s child was out of school to warrant further investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed in its duty to provide her child education once they stopped attending school. Ms X says the school place is unsuitable and wants the Council to arrange alternative education. Ms X complains her child did not receive suitable education, causing distress.
2. Ms X wants the Council to acknowledge errors it has made and remedy it. This includes acknowledgment the school placement is unsuitable, amendment to attendance records and for it to provide alternative education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. 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)
5. The courts have said that where someone has sought a remedy by way of proceedings in any court of law, we cannot investigate. This is the case even if the appeal did not or could not provide a complete remedy for all the injustice claimed. (R v The Commissioner for Local Administration ex parte PH (1999) EHCA Civ 916)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
7. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

8. In Ms X’s complaint, she raised concerns about school safeguarding and attendance procedures. Ms X has begun a court claim which includes these matters. Paragraph 5 of this decision statement applies, we can not consider these parts of her complaint.
9. Ms X also complains of a data breach by the school. It would be reasonable for Ms X to approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) with this complaint as it is better placed to decide on such matters.
10. Ms X’s child, Child Y, transitioned to secondary school in September 2025. Soon after, Child Y stopped attending but remained on roll at the school. Ms X wanted the Council to provide education to Child Y in accordance with Section 19 of the Education Act, which gives councils a duty to provide education to certain children who are not in school.
11. 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.
12. Between October 2025 and January 2026, the Council maintained the school placement was suitable and that it expected Child Y to attend. The school stated it could meet Child Y’s needs and told the Council that it was keen to work with it, Ms X and Child Y to reestablish attendance.
13. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to provide Section 19 education during that time. It advised an upcoming annual review of Child Y’s Education Health Care Plan (EHCP) would give parties an opportunity to discuss and, if wanted, appeal the placement.
14. At the annual review in January 2026, the school told the Council it could no longer meet Child Y’s needs. The Council agreed to seek an alternative placement for Child Y. The school used its funding provided by the Council to commission tuition for Child Y in the interim.
15. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to provide education to Child Y following the Annual Review. This is because it decided the education offered by the school was suitable. Child Y was receiving education through a commissioned arrangement provided by the named school while the Council consulted for a new placement. Following consultation with Ms X’s preferred schools, the Council named a provision in Child Y’s EHCP in May 2026. Ms X had a right of appeal to a specialist tribunal if she disagreed the placement named was suitable.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision not to provide education when Ms X’s child was out of school to warrant further investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman