Summary: There was fault by the Council in failing to establish, and keep under review, the legal basis on which Y was attending alternative provision. This meant the Council failed to consider if it was responsible for providing free transport to facilitate Y’s attendance. This caused injustice to Ms X who had to transport Y to the placement. The Council has agreed to refund expenses, reassess transport eligibility and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains the Council failed to provide free transport to alternative provision for her son, Y.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
3. 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)
4. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools unless it relates to special educational needs, when the schools are acting on behalf of the council to secure educational provision as set out in Section F of the young person’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
5. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
6. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.
7. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the relevant available evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
8. If we are 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

9. I have investigated the complaint about whether the Council should have funded transport to an alternative provision (AP) setting from February 2024 to date. I am satisfied Ms X believed Y required an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for transport to be provided, and the Plan should have been in place by Spring 2024. The Council should have been aware a transport duty to AP can arise even if a pupil does not have an EHC Plan and was aware of the AP being made for Y from 2023. I would not have expected Ms X to know the law on AP and transport, particularly as the Council’s transport policy did not reference this. I have therefore exercised discretion to investigate from February 2024, even though this is more than twelve months before Ms X came to the Ombudsman.
10. I have not investigated delay in the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment process, or whether the Council should have intervened to provide or oversee alternative education under s.19 Education Act 1996. These issues are not within the scope of the complaint Ms X has asked me to consider.
11. There is an ongoing appeal about the contents of Y’s EHC Plan and future placement. We cannot comment on matters which are subject to an appeal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
13. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
14. 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 found

Relevant law and guidance

15. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that councils must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which makes the school inaccessible to the child. I refer to this as s.19 education.
16. 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 any evidence. It must then decide whether it has a duty to make provision under s.19.
17. Councils should consider any attempts the school is making to support the child. This might involve 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.
18. If a child has an EHC Plan the council also has an ongoing duty to arrange the support guaranteed by the Plan. However, this might not always be possible, such as where the special educational provision is designed for the child’s normal classroom setting.
19. 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)
20. Our guidance says that councils should:

Keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing when the child is able.

• Work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children into their normal educational setting as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary.
• Ensure effective channels of communication between parents, internal teams, and external bodies (such as schools, and the NHS) to ensure that issues are dealt with promptly by the right people, and that any complaints and identified and responded to under the relevant policy.

21. Where councils arrange for schools or other bodies to carry out their functions on their behalf, the council remains responsible. Therefore, councils should retain oversight and control to ensure their s.19 duty is properly fulfilled.
22. The Education Act 1996 places a duty on parents to ensure their children of compulsory school age, receive a suitable full-time education. Failure to meet this duty is an offence. Councils have the power to prosecute parents who fail to ensure their child’s regular attendance at school.
23. Section 61 of Children and Families Act 2014 allows councils, or the Tribunal, to arrange special educational provision in an EHC Plan otherwise than in a school. An authority can only do so if it satisfied that it would be inappropriate for some or all the provision to be made in a school. Before doing so the Council must consult the child’s parent or the young person.
24. Education otherwise than at school (EOTAS) under s.61 is funded by the Council and set out in the EHC Plan.
25. As well as being able to arrange s.19 education on the Council’s behalf, schools can arrange provision:
• Under s.100 Education and Inspections Act 2006: the Governing body must arrange provision of suitable fulltime education for pupils of compulsory school age who are excluded from the school for a fixed period on disciplinary grounds.
• Under s.29(3) Education Act 2002: the Governing body of a maintained school may require registered pupils to attend at any place outside the school premises for the purposes of receiving instruction or training included in the secular curriculum for the school.
• Under s.29A of Education Act 2002 the Governing body of a maintained school may require any registered pupil to attend at any place outside the school premises for the purpose of receiving educational provision which is intended to improve the behaviour of the pupil.
26. While s.29 of the 2002 Act did not originally apply to academies, they can arrange off-site provision under their general powers (Statutory Guidance, Arranging Alternative Provision, February 2025).
27. Statutory Guidance, Arranging Alternative Provision, February 2025 says:
• Where interventions and targeted support have not been successful in improving a child’s behaviour at their home school, off-site direction can be used to arrange time-limited placements at an alternative provision or another mainstream school.
• Off-site direction can be fulltime or a combination of part-time alternative education and continued mainstream education.
• Where off-site direction is to alternative provision the Governing body must have regard to the statutory guidance and comply with the Education (Educational Provision for Improving Behaviour) Regulations 2010.
• Regulations require the Governing body to notify the parents in writing about the placement. Where the pupil has an EHC Plan, the school must also notify the Council.
• Parents and where the child has an EHC plan, the Council, can request in writing the Governing body hold a review meeting.
• The length of time a pupil can be directed off-site will depend on what best supports the child’s needs and potential improvement in behaviour however the Governing body should hold regular reviews and give written notification within six days of a review meeting if they decide to continue the placement including their reasons for the extension and how long the extension will last.
• Where a child has an EHC plan the Council can name an alternative provision for the child to attend, but this should not be used as a substitute for special school provision because there is insufficient capacity. Placements into alternative provision should always be made with the child’s reintegration back into their school in mind.
• Councils are responsible for maintaining an EHC Plan. If the school named on a child’s EHC Plan believes the child will benefit from alternative provision, they should inform the Council so the Council can then consider whether to review and amend the EHC plan, for example to name an alternative provision school in Section I as a new placement or as a dual placement alongside the home school or other institution.
28. The Education (Educational Provision for Improving Behaviour) Regulations 2010 says the written notice a school must give to parents (and the Council where the child has an EHC Plan) when using s.29 powers must include:
• the address where the education is to be provided,
• the number of days the requirement is to be imposed,
• the reasons for and objectives of imposing the requirement.
29. Section 155 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 (amending s.444ZA of the 1996 Education Act) extended the circumstances in which a parent can be prosecuted for failing to ensure a child receives fulltime education to include:
• Where a child is required to attend an alternative provision setting, or education provided within the home, under:
1. s.19 Education Act 1996, or
2. s.100 Education and Inspections Act 2006

and notice in writing has been given to the parent.

• Where a child is required to attend alternative provision arranged by the school under an off-site direction under s.29 Education Act 2002.
2. The Education Act 1996 sets out statutory defences to prosecution of a parent for non-attendance. This includes when the parent proves the Council was under a duty to provide transport and has failed to do so.
3. Councils must make suitable home to school travel arrangements for ‘eligible children’ of compulsory school age for the purpose of facilitating the child's attendance at the ‘relevant educational establishment’ for the child. Arrangements must be free of charge. (s.508B Education Act 1996)
4. ‘Home to school travel arrangements’, in relation to an ‘eligible child’, are travel arrangements relating to travel in both directions between the child's home and the relevant educational establishment in question in relation to that child.
5. ‘Eligible children’ are defined in Schedule 35B of the 1996 Act and include children who live outside ‘statutory walking distance’ from their school or the place other than a school where they are receiving education under s.19 Education Act 1996 or during a period of exclusion.
6. Schedule 35B does not require councils to make transport arrangements where a pupil has been directed off-site by schools using s.29 Education Act 2002 powers.

Back to top

What happened

Chronology of events

35. Y is on roll at a mainstream academy primary school. Ms X has provided me with reports which explain that Y has experienced significant difficulty accessing mainstream education due to complex neurodevelopmental needs.
36. In the Summer term of 2023, Y’s school directed Y to off-site learning which the Council described to me as a short-term alternative provision intended to support reintegration into mainstream education. I will refer to this as AP1. Prior to this Y was on a reduced timetable and received several fixed term exclusions.
37. In September 2023, a request to assess Y for an EHC Plan was received by the Council. The Council told me that via this process it became aware that Y was not attending school fulltime and of the short-term alternative education the school had arranged at AP1, which the Council considered appropriate.
38. A report from AP1 shows Y was to start reintegration in October 2023 with support from AP1 staff. The school would later confirm in response to a draft EHC Plan that Y never returned to mainstream lessons after returning from AP1 in November 2023 and was taught separately within the school with 2:1 support.
39. Attendance data in Winter 2023 shows Y attended short morning sessions at school. At other times attendance codes used by the school show Y as either ‘absent with leave for exceptional circumstances’ (Code C) or ‘excluded with no alternative provision in place’ (Code E). This pattern continued until February 2024 when Y was recorded as being educated off-site two days a week (Code B), attending school three short mornings, and Code C three afternoons per week. My understanding is that from February 2024, the school commissioned a different alternative provision, which I will refer to as AP2.
40. AP2 was over 14 miles from the family home and Ms X was required to transport Y. It is the transport to this provision which is the subject of this complaint.
41. Although the Council had received the request for an EHC needs assessment in September 2023, and the law says this process must not exceed twenty weeks, the Council did not decide whether it was necessary to issue a Plan for Y until July 2024. It did not issue a final EHC Plan until November 2024. The process therefore took fourteen months not twenty weeks to complete. Ms X has appealed the final Plan to the Tribunal and is awaiting a final hearing.
42. In July 2024 Y’s school was consulted on the draft EHC Plan and stated it could not meet Y’s needs. It confirmed Y was attending AP2 two days per week and until mid-June had attended three short mornings in school outside the classroom. The school recommended Y be provided with specialist schooling.
43. Attendance data shows Y was not attending school at all after mid-June 2024 and coded as B, C, E or illness for the remainder of the school year.
44. From late September Y was educated off-site three days and was recorded as unauthorised absence two days per week.
45. This pattern continued until late June 2025, when Y started to receive home tuition by a third provider (AP3). Y also continued to attend AP2 three days per week, and Ms X continued to drive him; this remains the situation to date. The Council told me it expects alternative provision to remain in place until the Tribunal appeal is completed.
46. In September 2025, Ms X made a formal request to the Council for free transport to AP2. Ms X believed the Council had a duty to provide suitable transport for a child with an EHC Plan.
47. Ms X also made a request to the Council provision with AP3 be increased from 6 hours to two full days per week. The Council asked the school for costs. The school replied with costs for AP2 (3 sessions a week), £30 transport per week, and current AP3 costs (2:1 for 6 hours per week).
48. The Council’ s special educational needs (SEN) funding panel considered the case in late October 2025. It noted Y was attending AP2 three days per week and received home tuition two half days ‘until a suitable placement is identified’. The documents indicate transport had been previously agreed and the panel was asked to consider if funding transport could continue. The transport funding referred to the school providing Ms X with £30 shopping vouchers per week towards her transport costs, which it paid from SEN funding it received from the Council towards Y’s EHC Plan provision.
49. Ms X provided an estimate to the Council of her mileage for transporting Y three days per week. Ms X said at a mileage rate of 50p, an estimate of what the Council owed her would be £78 per week, or £3510 over 45 school weeks. After vouchers received of £1350, this left an estimated shortfall of £2160 for the period November 2024 to December 2025.
50. In late November 2025 the Panel agreed to the additional tuition with AP3 but not the transport costs. It said the school should never have paid transport expenses from SEN funding and Ms X would need to apply to the transport team.
51. Ms X had already applied to the transport team which considered the application in October 2025 noting the distance to AP2 was over 14 miles and required a journey of 1.5 hours using three buses. The Council declined support on the basis the Council’s transport policy did not cover alternative provision and advised Ms X to contact the school as it had decided to ‘off-roll’ Y to AP2.
52. Ms X complained and appealed to the Council. The transport team was awaiting the SEN team’s response to the complaint so did not reply. Ms X then made a stage two complaint in December 2025.
53. The Council responded to this in January 2026. It again refused support on the basis the alternative provision was not named on the final EHC Plan and said responsibility for providing support with travel arrangements lay with the school. The Council told Ms X the school was also not obligated to provide transport but should make suitable arrangements if the journey was one a child could not reasonably be expected to walk accompanied by a parent. The Council acknowledged it was aware of the alternative provision, and said it was providing funding for this, but it was not arranging the provision, the school was doing so.

Council’s response to my enquiries and offer of financial remedy

54. In response to my enquiries the Council told me:
• The mainstream environment had a negative impact on Y’s behaviour and ability to self-regulate;
• Y’s attendance was reduced to part-time due to escalating social emotional and mental health needs, unsafe behaviours and exclusion;
• Y had continued difficulties in self-regulating and safely engaging with the environment leading to Y ceasing to attend the mainstream setting altogether;
• The Council took no action in relation to attendance, as this would not be appropriate where non-attendance related to documented SEN and the Council’s ongoing arrangements to secure suitable provision;
• The Council became aware of Y’s reduced attendance when it received the request for an EHC needs assessment in Autumn 2023, and received further updated information from the school in July 2024 when it consulted the school with the draft EHC Plan;
• The Council was in contact with the school about extending funding for AP2 and AP3 from Autumn 2025;
• The Council does not consider the provision was arranged under s.19 Education Act. It says the provision was arranged and managed by the school ‘as part of a planned approach to support [Y’s] needs and reintegration into mainstream education, rather than because [Y] was unable to attend for health or other reasons’.
• The Council was aware of the arrangements, considered them appropriate, and continued to review provision through statutory processes. The Council progressed consultations once a draft EHC Plan was in place. There were discussions to identify a longer-term placement and the Council ensured appropriate funding was in place to maintain the agreed alternative provision during this period.
• The Council has specified provision at AP2 and AP3 within the EHC Plan as part of a (s.61) EOTAS package designed to meet immediate needs, including aspects of Y’s special educational needs, particularly Y’s ability to engage safely in education. (My understanding is this is in a working document not a final EHC Plan).
• The Council considers AP2 and AP3 represent an interim arrangement as Y will require a specialist school placement (subject to an outstanding appeal by Ms X for EOTAS to continue).
• AP1, AP2 and AP3 and a transport voucher were funded by the school until Autumn 2025 when the Council agreed to formalise and fund alternative provision through high needs SEN funding and increase hours with AP3.
• Transport is not funded via the high needs SEN funding block; the school should not have used this funding to provide vouchers.
• Transport to alternative education remains the responsibility of the school commissioning the alternative education; alternatively, it can be considered separately under the Council's transport policy.
55. The Council told me that it now accepts there was a ‘lack of joined up decision‑making in this case’. Initially, the school arranged and funded the provision, including transport contributions via vouchers. Once the EHC Plan was finalised (November 2024) and responsibility transferred to the SEN team, effective coordination between services did not take place. The Council’s complaint response in early 2026 identified alternative provision was being delivered via the school rather than directly commissioned by the Council, while also acknowledging that high needs funding had been increased to enable this arrangement to continue. The Council accepts the arrangements were not parental preference but part of the Council’s arrangements to meet Y’s needs while it worked to secure a suitable long-term placement through the Tribunal process.
56. The Council told me its transport policy states transport is not funded for alternative provision, but accepts this case required a coordinated approach between SEN and the transport team and that coordination did not occur. As a result, the Council says, ‘inconsistent and incorrect decisions were made, including the initial use of high needs funding for transport, which was later acknowledged to be inappropriate’. The Council says opportunities for more effective communication and joint decision-making between the SEN and the transport team were not fully realised, ‘which led to some inconsistency and lack of clarity in how transport support was managed’. While the general position is that transport is not funded to alternative provision, the Council now considers there are exceptions where provision is required to meet a child’s needs, particularly where it is set out within, or aligned to, the child’s EHC Plan. In Y’s case, once the EHC process progressed and a Plan was issued, the Council accepted that AP2 and AP3 form part of the provision required to meet needs on an interim basis and has increased funding to support these arrangements are necessary for Y to access education.
57. The Council says transport to AP2 was refused under a strict interpretation of the transport policy relating to alternative provision, when this should have been considered as part of the overall package of support. AP2 and AP3 were considered necessary to fund, but transport to access the provision was not, creating inconsistency in the overall support package.
58. The Council says that on reflecting on this case, opportunities existed to:

• Better align decision‑making between SEN team and the transport team;
• Consider transport as part of the overall package of provision at an earlier stage;
• Provide clearer and more consistent communication to the parent regarding how funding and transport responsibilities were being determined.

59. The Council maintains that its transport policy was applied as written but accepts the practical application of that policy in this case did not fully account for the child’s individual circumstances, or the Council’s role in funding and supporting the provision.
60. The Council says:
• It would like to offer a sincere apology to Ms X and Y for the shortcomings it has now identified in the handling of this case. In particular, the lack of coordination between services, the resulting uncertainty around transport arrangements, and the financial burden placed on the family that have caused avoidable distress and inconvenience. The Council regrets that the support provided did not demonstrate a sufficiently joined‑up approach and acknowledges the impact this has had.
• It will reimburse the evidenced transport shortfall, at 50p per mile, representing costs reasonably incurred because of the issues identified in this case.
• It will undertake an urgent review of the current transport position and ensure that appropriate transport support is put in place, ensuring that a clear and lawful decision is made, taking full account of Y’s individual circumstances and the interim nature of the provision.
• It will offer Ms X a payment of £500 to acknowledge the distress, time and trouble caused in pursuing this matter, in addition to reimbursing expenses.
• It will take steps to strengthen joint working arrangements. This will include implementing a process where when alternative provision is agreed and funded (including through panel decision-making) the transport implications are considered at the same time and, where appropriate, discussed jointly between SEN team and the transport team.
• It will develop and circulate clear internal guidance to relevant staff to ensure that in cases involving alternative or interim provision access to that provision, including transport, is considered as part of a single coordinated package of support.
• It will share the learning from this case with relevant teams to reinforce the importance of coordinated decision-making and to reduce the likelihood of similar issues arising in future cases.

Analysis

Fault

61. Where schools arrange alternative provision under s.19 on behalf of councils, the Council can only delegate the commissioning arrangements, it cannot delegate the legal duty for s.19 education.
62. The Education Act 1996 confirms where a pupil is expected to attend provision arranged under s.19 the same transport duties apply to councils as when a pupil is required to attend a school. A child will be an ‘eligible child’ for transport purposes if they meet the criteria set out in Schedule 35B. This applies whether a pupil has an EHC Plan or not.
63. The Council is therefore wrong to conclude transport only arises when considering an overall support package for a pupil with an EHC Plan attending AP. The Council’s transport policy should cover pupils attending a ‘relevant educational establishment’, which may be a school or ‘the place other than a school where they are receiving education under s.19 Education Act 1996 or during a period of exclusion’.
64. AP2 was over 14 miles from Y’s home. This is beyond statutory walking distance. Therefore, Y was an ‘eligible’ child for transport if the AP they were required to attend was arranged under the s.19 duty, even if it was arranged by the school on the Council’s behalf.
65. If AP was made under the school’s own powers to direct off-site under s.29 Education Act 2002, the Council was not required to provide transport.
66. It is therefore important the Council was clear at the relevant time which legal power was used to place Y in AP. That clarity is not present here. No paperwork supports the school made an off-site direction and Ms X says she never received any formal written notice from the school. I have also seen no evidence the Council considered and recorded whether s.19 applied at the relevant time. This was fault.
67. The Council told me in response to my enquiries it does not consider the AP was made under s.19 but arranged and managed by the school ‘as part of a planned approach to support [Y’s] needs and reintegration into mainstream education, rather than because [Y] was unable to attend for health or other reasons’. I disagree.
68. AP1, being a short-term provision designed to reintegrate pupils, may have been arranged under s.29 powers, not s.19, but thereafter I find, on the balance of probabilities, the school was commissioning s.19 education on behalf of the Council. Support for this conclusion is:
• the school considered mainstream education inaccessible for Y;
• Y has not attended a mainstream lesson since 2023;
• the Council’s response to my enquiries confirms it shares the view Y’s SEN and dysregulation made mainstream inaccessible;
• a recent letter from the school to the Council about a reduction in funding indicates the school has not regarded the AP as ‘interim’ since 2024;
• AP2 and AP3 have not been commissioned on a time-limited basis;
• the school has not provided Ms X with a notice for off-site direction in relation to AP2 or AP3, and has not informed the Council or Ms X about the purpose of the provision, or about the number of days Y is expected to attend before Y can return to school;
• Ms X and the school’s expectation was that Y’s SEN would be met via the EHC needs assessment and naming of a more suitable setting and they could reasonably have expected that process to have been completed by Spring 2024, since then Ms X and the school have been waiting for the Council to identify a long-term specialist placement. There is no intention Y reintegrate into the school.
• Attendance data shows a pattern over three years of exclusions, off-site provision / AP, part-time timetables, unauthorised absence and absence due to exceptional circumstances. Apart from AP1 in Autumn 2023 this data does not support a short-term reintegration intervention.
69. Having found provision was made under s.19, by the school on the Council’s behalf, from February 2024, I also find the Council had a transport duty from that point.
70. I welcome the Council’s acknowledgement of fault from Autumn 2024 when the EHC Plan was issued, and the Council says it took over funding responsibilities for the alternative provision. The Council has acknowledged it should have considered how Y would travel to AP2 from Autumn 2024. However, for the reasons set out above I consider the Council’s duty to arrange transport to AP2 started in February 2024, when Y started to attend two days per week, not only when the (late) EHC Plan was issued. I also find that as Y has continued to attend AP2 after December 2025, the Council’s transport duty has also continued.

Injustice

71. The Council has now offered to refund Ms X’s transport expenses, but only for the period November 2024 to December 2025. For the reasons set out above I consider the Council should refund Ms X’s expenses for the whole period February 2024 until such time as it has completed the review of Y’s transport and alternative arrangements are in place.
72. I am satisfied the offer of £500 is an appropriate amount to reflect Ms X’s time and trouble and is in line with what we would recommend.

Back to top

Action

Within four weeks of my final decision:

73. The Council will provide an apology direct to Ms X and Y.
74. The Council will calculate Ms X’s mileage for all journeys to AP2 from February 2024 to date and refund these at 50p per mile. The Council may deduct the value of vouchers provided to Ms X from the calculation. The Council should use its usual method for calculating distance for school transport.
75. The Council will continue to pay Ms X’s mileage expenses until alternative transport arrangements are in place.
76. The Council will complete the review of Y’s transport needs and provide Ms X with a written decision.
77. The Council will pay Ms X £500 to acknowledge the distress, time and trouble caused in pursuing this matter.

Within three months of my final decision:

78. The Council will provide a report for the Ombudsman setting out the actions it has taken to implement the service improvements it has itself identified are required:
• To strengthen joint working arrangements. This will include implementing a process where when alternative provision is agreed and funded (including through panel decision-making) the transport implications are considered at the same time and, where appropriate, discussed jointly between SEN team and the transport team.
• To develop and circulate clear internal guidance to relevant staff to ensure that in cases involving alternative or interim provision access to that provision, including transport, is considered as part of a single coordinated package of support.
• To share the learning from this case with relevant teams to reinforce the importance of coordinated decision-making and to reduce the likelihood of similar issues arising in future cases.
79. In addition to the Council’s own service improvements, the Council has agreed to:
• Ensure that when it becomes aware that a pupil is not attending school fulltime it keeps clear records to show how it has considered whether its s.19 duty is triggered, the outcome of the decision, and provides the parent with a written decision;
• Review its transport policy, and training for transport officers, to ensure that when s.19 education is arranged for a pupil their eligibility for transport is considered.
80. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

81. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman