Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s refusal to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s son. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Ms X, complains that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 for her son while he was not attending 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.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X says she asked the Council to make alternative educational provision for her son in September 2025, as he was not attending school. She complains that the Council is at fault in failing to do so. She contends that the fact that her son was not receiving appropriate education engaged the Council’s section 19 duty, and that its refusal to make such provision amounts to fault
6. In the report of its investigation of Ms X’s complaint the Council maintained that, at the point at which the request for alternative provision was made, its section 19 duty was not engaged because there was insufficient evidence to show the child’s school could not provide him with suitable education. Ms X disagrees with this finding, and argues that the decision results from a misapplication of law.
7. It is not for the Ombudsman to decide whether the Section 19 duty is engaged. That is a matter for the Council. The question for us is whether there is evidence of fault in the way the Council made its decision and, if so, whether this fault could have led to a different outcome. There is no such evidence in this case. Rather, the Council’s decision appears reasonable and proportionate. It is not for the Ombudsman to interpret the law. That is a matter for the courts. Without evidence of fault on the Council’s part, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision it made or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

Back to top

Final decision

8. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman