Summary: We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about alternative educational provision for her child, Y. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to offer suitable alternative education for her child, Y, and refused to commission her parental preference on cost grounds. She says Y has missed out on education as a result and the matter has caused her and Y distress. She wants the Council to reassess Y’s education, offer him suitable provision, apologise and improve its service.

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))

3. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

6. In September 2025, the Council accepted Y was unable to attend school for health reasons and that it had a duty to offer Y alternative educational provision. It offered Y education through its Medical Education Team (MET).
7. Ms X was unhappy with this decision as she did did not agree MET was a suitable placement for Y. She asked the Council to agree to an alternative provider. The Council considered Ms X’s request and her reasons why she did not consider MET appropriate, but decided MET was a suitable offer of alternative provision for Y. It told Ms X the reasons for its decision. This included that her preferred provider was considerably more expensive and that agreeing to it would result in unreasonable public expenditure. It set out how it would address her concerns about MET and provided information about the support it would provide for Y to attend.
8. We will not investigate this complaint. The Council considered Ms X’s request for her preferred provider but decided it would not agree to it. It appropriately explained the reasons for its decision to Ms X and the law allows it to consider cost implications as part of its decision making. There is insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

9. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman