Summary: Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council failed to arrange suitable education for their son, C, so he did not receive the provision in his EHCP. The Ombudsman has found that the Council failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that C received alternative provision while out of school or to facilitate his attendance at school. The Council has agreed to pay Mr and Mrs B £5,400 for C’s benefit for the loss of two years of his education, £1,000 in recognition of the distress and social isolation that this has caused C, and £500 for the distress caused to Mr and Mrs B. The Council will also carry out an audit of children for whom it has a statutory duty to provide suitable full-time education under s.19 Education Act 1996.

The complaint

1. Mr and Mrs B complain that the Council has failed to arrange suitable education for their son, C, so he has not received the provision in his education, health, and care plan (EHCP). They say that the Council has also failed to communicate properly with them or to address their complaints in a timely way.

Back to top

What I have investigated

2. Mr and Mrs B have explained that there have been problems with the educational provision for their son for many years. I have exercised discretion to consider the Council’s actions since C was out of school at the end of 2017.
3. Mr and Mrs B have not appealed to SEND, so I have exercised discretion to consider aspects of their complaint which might have been appealed.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)
6. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(b), as amended)
7. 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/care provider has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. Given the lengthy period that C was without education, and that a placement for C was only arranged shortly before Mr and Mrs B’s complaint to our office, I have exercised discretion to consider Mr and Mrs B’s complaint from the time that C stopped attending school in December 2017, until the time that Mr and Mrs B complained to the Ombudsman in February 2020.
9. I have considered Mr and Mrs B’s written complaint and supporting papers and discussed their complaint with Mrs B. I have made enquiries of the Council and considered its response. I have had regard to relevant legislation and guidance. I have also sent Mr and Mrs B and the Council a draft decision and considered their comments.
10. 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

Legal and administrative background

Special educational needs

11. The Children and Families Act 2014 says that a council is responsible for a child or young person if he or she is in the council’s area and has been:
• identified by the council as someone who has or may have special educational needs; or
• brought to the council’s attention by any person as someone who has or may have special educational needs.
12. Once an assessment determines that special educational needs provision is required for a child, the council must issue an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. The council has a duty to ensure it is in place and is maintained. Councils are responsible for ensuring the stated provision in the Plan is provided.

Annual Reviews

13. Councils oversee delivery of EHC Plans through annual reviews, whether by attending meetings themselves, or by reviewing the school’s records of meetings.
14. The Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice January 2015 (the Code) says reviews must be undertaken in partnership with the child and their parent.
15. EHC Plans must be reviewed, as a minimum, every 12 months. The child’s parent or the young person, an officer from the council, a health care professional and a social services officer should be invited to the review.

Appeals

16. Parents can appeal to the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal (SEND Tribunal) when a council refuses to carry out an EHC needs assessment, refuses to issue an EHC Plan or a parent is dissatisfied with the final EHC Plan, and the school named. Appeals must be made within two months of the disputed decision.

Alternative Provision

17. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says “councils must make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at a school, or otherwise than at school, for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless arrangements are made for them”.
18. Government statutory guidance states that education should be provided as soon as it is clear the child will be away from school for 15 days or more, where suitable education is not being provided by the school, and should address the needs of the individual child. (Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs, 2013)
19. Suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability, and aptitude and to any special educational needs they may have. (Education Act 1996, section 19(6)
20. The guidance states that “In order to better understand the needs of the child, and therefore choose the most appropriate provision, LAs should work closely with medical professionals and the child’s family and consider the medical evidence”.
21. If medical evidence is not quickly available, the guidance states councils “should consider liaising with other medical professionals, such as the child’s GP, and consider looking at other evidence to ensure minimal delay in arranging appropriate provision for the child”.
22. The statutory guidance says the duty to provide a suitable education applies: “to all children of compulsory school age resident in the local authority area, whether or not they are on the roll of a school, and whatever type of school they attend… there will be a wide range of circumstances where a child had a health need but will receive suitable education that meets their needs without the intervention of the local authority”.
23. The education provided by the council must be full-time unless the council determines that full-time education would not be in the child’s best interests for reasons of the child’s physical or mental health. (Education Act 1996, section 3A and 3AA)
24. We issued guidance in 2016 on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to provide education for children who, for whatever reason, do not attend school full-time. We identified six recommendations based on examples of good practice in councils.
• Consider the individual circumstances of each case and be aware that, potentially, a council may need to act whatever the reason for absence (with the exception of minor issues that schools deal with on a day-to-day basis) – even when a child is on a school roll.
• Consult all the professionals involved in a child's education and welfare, taking account of the evidence in coming to decisions.
• Choose, based on all the evidence, whether to enforce attendance or provide the child with suitable alternative education.
• Keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing it if a child's capacity to learn increases.
• Adopt a strategic and planned approach to reintegrating children back into mainstream education where they are able to do so.
• Put whatever action is chosen into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.

Case law regarding alternative educational provision

25. In G v Westminster City Council [2004] (followed more recently in DS v Wolverhampton City Council [2017]), the Court of Appeal stated: “It seems to us that ‘otherwise’, where used for the second time in s19, is intended to cover any situation in which it is not reasonably possible for a child to take advantage of any existing suitable schooling”.
26. So, if the council has arranged for the provision of education which is suitable for a child and which it is reasonably practicable for the child to enjoy, a council would not be under a duty to provide alternative suitable education, simply because, for one reason or another, the child was not taking advantage of the existing facility.
27. In R v Croydon Council [2015], the issue was whether a child of compulsory school age could reasonably be expected to attend the school. The Court decided that, where a child or young person had a medical reason or special educational needs, which explained the non-attendance, a council’s duty to provide alternative education would be triggered, and alternative provision should be made pending finding a suitable school.

What happened

28. Mr and Mrs B’s son, C, has autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and anxiety disorder. He also has eating problems which have affected his physical development, sensory sensitivities, and delayed motor skill development. C previously attended a mainstream primary school; however, C’s difficulties were affecting his learning.

EHCP – temporary placement ahead of long-term placement

29. In September 2016, the Council issued an EHCP. C was placed in a specialist Pupil Referral Unit (School 1) as a temporary placement before moving to a long-term special school in order to develop strategies to deal with his anxieties. As C was then in Year 5, School 1 could not provide long-term provision as it only caters for pupils up to Year 6.
30. The Council discussed C’s needs in October 2016 with a view to a place at School 2, a special school for children with complex needs and moderate learning difficulties. They felt that, at the time, C’s needs would best be met in a school with provision for severe learning difficulties.

Annual Review – proposed transition to permanent placement

31. In June 2017, the first Annual Review of C’s EHCP was carried out. It was agreed that C was settled at School 1 and had made progress but that his current placement was not appropriate. It was felt that C would benefit from being in a slightly larger group of children. School 1’s headteacher and School 2’s outreach worker felt that C’s presentation in a mainstream setting had not properly represented his level of cognition. After intensive work managing his anxiety, he was now presenting as a child with moderate learning difficulties (MLD). They and C’s parents all felt that C met the criteria for a place at School 2. It was agreed to prepare a general referral to the SEND Services Manager to review the alternative provision at School 2 and, if agreed, to prepare a transition plan.

Increase in anxiety / decline in and ending of school attendance

32. However, around this time, C’s attendance began to decline, and the school noticed an increase in C’s anxiety levels. C then moved to a different site with a larger group of children in noisier surroundings. From the beginning of the autumn term 2017, the school noted a dramatic decline in aspects of C’s health, engagement, and mobility and a corresponding increase in his anxiety and distress. This resulted in him making no academic progress during the autumn term. So, in October 2017, the school made an attendance referral to the Council’s Education Welfare Service. This explained that the school had regularly contacted and met the parents to discuss C’s absence.
33. The Education Welfare Service wrote to C’s parents in early November 2017. A meeting was arranged for later that month, but the school was unable to attend, so a further meeting was arranged for January 2018.
34. The Special Needs Team also wrote to C’s parents to explain that C’s placement had been discussed at a recent admissions meeting for School 2, and that the school would like to undertake further assessment of C at School 1. However, C had stopped attending School 1 in mid-December 2017, so this assessment was not able to proceed.
35. Following an emergency professionals meeting with School 1’s headteacher, a counselling psychologist from the Council’s Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) wrote to the family suggest a meeting to discuss support for C. C was unable to attend the first meeting as he was unwell, and the family declined the second meeting offered due to the number of people attending.

Multi-agency meeting – proposed reintegration into temporary placement to lead to full-time placement

36. At the end of April 2018, a Health, Social Care and Education Multi-Agency Meeting was convened. The Early Help Team then wrote to the professionals involved at the start of May, noting that the meeting had identified potential safeguarding concerns. They noted that C’s school attendance for the year was 28%. They considered that the anxiety experienced by C and his mother were significantly affecting his eating and education. Concerns were expressed that Mrs B may inadvertently been colluding with C’s anxiety, and that this meant that C might have some control of his school attendance/engagement and his food intake.
37. However, C had been discharged by his dietician and gastroenterologist as they did not consider that his controlled eating meant that he was ill. The CAMHS eating disorder team also did not consider that he had an eating disorder. It was noted that there had been a series of missed appointments with community, mental and specialist health providers including a failure to pick up food supplements. All medical professionals involved in C’s care believed him to be well enough for school.
38. It was proposed to review C’s medical records to clarify what help had been provided and/or rejected. It was also proposed to put in place support under the common assessment framework (CAF), which is used by organisations across the county to support families who are struggling. C’s doctor would be approached about possible medication to help with his sleep, and CAMHS regarding potential support. School 1 would offer a further part-time placement for C with support to be provided to help his attendance, and a placement for Year 7 would be identified by July to allow for transition.
39. The Council contacted School 2 to discuss C’s placement for September. The school noted that C was not currently “classroom ready” and was yet to return to School 1. School 2 also did not have places available for September 2018.

Annual Review – proposed home schooling to lead to full-time placement

40. In June 2018, C’s Annual Review noted that he had not attended school since December 2017, except for a short visit. Since moving sites and to a four to eight children placement provision, C’s anxiety had increased dramatically. Although C’s eating and routine had improved at home, he had made no academic progress since the previous September. School 1 is a provision for higher functioning pupils and C was the only child at the school with identified learning difficulties. At times it was difficult for him to keep pace academically or interact with his peers. It was felt that C would benefit from a period of home schooling with a view to moving on to a placement at an MLD provision class for Key Stage 3, possibly at School 2.
41. The Annual Review recommended that the Council make a referral for home tuition for C in the summer term 2018 and liaise with the family regarding C’s placement for the autumn term 2018. In early July, the Education Attendance Service closed C’s case on the basis that he had been allocated home tuition.
42. In August, the Council wrote to Mr and Mrs B and explained it had noted the recommendations in the Annual Review. It said it considered that C’s EHCP remained appropriate, although the EHCP still referred to a temporary placement at School 1. It advised the family that they could appeal the decision.

No home tuition provided, and no long-term provision identified

43. In November 2018, the Family Services Team (Family Services) consulted with a school for children and young people with ASD from the ages of five to 19 (School 3). Mrs B visited the school, and both she and the school expressed concern as to how C would manage a one-hour taxi journey given his anxiety. The school said it would contact Mrs C again in the New Year. Having spoken again with the family, School 3 understood that substantial work was required with C before he would be able to access education and any referral to the school could progress. The school was happy to reconsider the referral in due course once suitable support was in place.
44. Family Services also contacted School 2 again. The school noted that C had not accessed full-time education since early summer 2017 or any curriculum sessions or 1:1 tuition since July 2017 due to his increased anxiety. As he was currently unable to manage 3:9 staffing/pupil provision, School 2 felt that the 2:12 provision it offers would not currently be suitable for C.

Referral to Alternative Tuition Service for home tuition

45. In late January 2019, the first CAF meeting was held. The family raised concerns over the lack of progress with C’s schooling. Family Services then made referrals for C to the Alternative Tuition Service (ATS), who requested an updated risk assessment (received in mid-February) and to the educational psychologist. Further meetings were held in February and March 2019, to review C’s EHCP.
46. In the meantime, the family made a telephone complaint and then written complaints about the lack of provision for C. They explained that Mrs B had had to give up work to look after C due to the lack of provision for him.
47. Family Services / the ATS followed up on the referral to the educational psychologist, teachers were inducted, and, on 11 March 2019, C received his first home tuition session (for one hour). This was followed by two 1½ hour sessions over the following week before the family received a call saying that the ATS had dismissed the teacher. The Council was not able to provide reasons for the dismissal, though the family checked on the internet and understood that this related to an earlier dismissal for misconduct.
48. A second teacher was subsequently appointed, but unfortunately C found it difficult managing the transition from his first teacher and so it was agreed that the new teacher would be withdrawn.
49. At the end of March, a Family Network Meeting was held with the parents. It was agreed that the Council would provide regular updates on progress and review C’s EHCP.
50. Family Services responded to Mr and Mrs B’s complaint in April. They explained the steps taken to consult schools regarding possible placements for C, and the steps now being taken to assess and support C. They apologised for the delay in following up the referral for home tuition in June 2018. They said this was an oversight but had also been exacerbated by the shortage of tutors to work with students with medical needs.
51. An educational psychologist visited the family in mid-April though C was not able to meet her. The following month a meeting was held with C and his mother where the psychologist was able to undertake a full assessment.
52. Mr and Mrs B also complained again about the delay in providing home tuition, and the lack of contact about the future long-term provision for C. They asked to escalate their complaint through the Council’s procedures. They also complained to their MP.
53. The same Family Services officer responded to Mr and Mrs B’s further complaint, with similar findings to before. The response also explained that the Council had limited resources for alternative tuition, and that this would generally be limited to five hours a week for children who are medically unfit to attend school.

Annual Review – to source home tuition and prepare transition to long-term provision

54. In June 2019, C’s Annual Review was undertaken with the involvement of the family, ATS and Family Services. C currently had no educational provision. Mrs B was keen for C to be able to attend a mainstream school, where he has a friend, one day a week.
55. It was agreed that C needed to move to an education setting. Family Services would review the situation with School 2 and also look at the possibility of C attending the mainstream school one day a week. In the meantime, the ATS would need to identify a teacher for alternative provision at home to help C with his transition to the new setting and investigate if C could be taught some science. They would also look into involvement from the Inclusion Service and arrange a review meeting for September.
56. The Assistant Director for Family Services responded to the MP’s complaint. She confirmed that C was currently without a teacher following the termination of the first teacher’s contract, and C’s difficulties engaging with a second teacher. She said that the Council was currently seeking further alternative provision and arrangements for a placement for the autumn term.
57. The ATS found a further teacher for C who visited C’s house before the end of term, but C was unwilling to engage with him.

New school year – C still out of school

58. The ATS teacher met C at home at the beginning of September 2019 when C talked about his wishes for the future. He also engaged reluctantly in a 20-minute session with a break in the middle. Since then, Mrs B had cancelled sessions with the ATS teacher due to C’s distress.
59. In September 2019, Family Services contacted the mainstream school that Mrs B had requested about naming the school in C’s EHCP. The review meeting was also held with the parents. It was agreed to update the Annual Review to the current term and seek additional comments from parents and professionals to make a referral to the Specialist Admissions Panel. It was noted that C did not associate home with learning, as he felt this was a place for family time, and so was rejecting home tuition. Instead, he wanted to go to school, learn and make friends. The ATS teacher noted that C had been out of school for around two years. His mental health was deteriorating, and he felt very upset that a place had not been found for him. In the meantime, the ATS teacher would try to engage C in 1:1 provision.
60. The ATS teacher visited C at home again. However, C was unwilling to engage with the teacher and became very distressed. The teacher wrote to Family Services and explained that C did not wish to engage with home tuition. She felt that C was not against education but having to be taught at home made him feel rejected, and even moving the 1:1 provision away from the home setting would not improve matters. She felt that, due to C’s delayed emotional, social, and academic development, and physical problems he needed a structured and sheltered environment but that an appropriate school placement might succeed.
61. The mainstream school responded to the request to name the school in C’s EHCP. It said it would be unable to provide the support that C needed and that attending the school would be detrimental to his needs.
62. In response to the concerns about C’s lack of engagement with home tuition, Family Services made a Multi-Agency Referral. Mrs B expressed some concern over the referral, but Family Services explained that this was not a judgment but a response to concerns about C. With input from Mrs B and professionals, C’s EHCP was updated, naming an appropriate specialist setting for him. C was then referred for consideration of a specialist placement (together with a robust transition package) through the Local Authority Specialist Admissions Process.
63. In December, Family Services wrote to the family to confirm that a place would be offered to C at School 2 with effect from January 2020.
64. The school contacted Mr and Mrs B to put a bespoke induction plan in place for C. This involved C attending three times a week. However, C found it hard to reintegrate and was only able to manage two days in March, before the COVID-19 epidemic.

My assessment

65. It is clear that C has complex needs and that his anxiety and other health issues have also contributed to the challenges for the Council when seeking to put in place and sustain suitable educational provision for him. It is also not the case that the Council took no action in relation to C’s absence from education. There were meetings involving the parents and discussions and meetings with a range of professionals involved with C. There were attempts to provide home tuition. There were discussions about reintegration into C’s existing temporary school provision and plans for transition into a new school setting.
66. However, C’s school attendance started to decline from the summer of 2017, and he was not engaged in learning from that point. He was then physically out of school from December 2017 until January 2020 and received virtually no educational provision in the interim.
67. I note that when the Council was initially notified by the school of C’s attendance issues in October 2017, and after he was out of school from December 2017, the Council had some difficulty arranging meetings with C and his family due to his anxiety and other health issues. After several months, the Council convened a multi-Agency meeting to discuss C’s situation, but it was not until June 2018 that C’s Annual Review was undertaken, and proposals were put in place for home tuition ahead of a transition to MLD provision for Key Stage 3.
68. This was fault. The Council should have taken steps to endure that educational provision was in place once it was clear that C would be out of education for 15 days. The fact that the Council may have encountered some difficulties in engaging with the family, does not remove its duty to ensure that C was provided suitable education.
69. Moreover, as 2018 was a transition year for C moving from Year 6 to Year 7, the Council should have updated C’s EHCP by 15 February, at latest. Not only was there delay but, after the June 2018 Annual Review, the Council decided that the EHCP did not need to be updated despite it still referring to C’s provision at School 1, when the school only offered provision up to Year 6.
70. Although the Council had agreed to put home tuition in place by summer 2018, this referral was not actioned. The Education Attendance Service wrongly closed the case when there was no home tuition in place. In the event, no provision was put in place until March 2019, some 15 months after C was out of school altogether.
71. The Council was due to identify a placement for C for September 2018 but there was no home tuition in place and C was not “classroom-ready”. Likewise, when long-term provision was explored in November 2018, C was not felt to be ready, so the lack of home education again delayed the consideration of future provision for C.
72. The Council had agreed, in C’s 2018 Annual Review, that it would liaise with the family about provision for him as and when more information was available. Mrs B has explained that she tried to contact Family Services by phone and email for an update about long-term provision but received no response. She says the CAF meeting was the first contact from Family Services between June 2018 and January 2019. It was only at this point that the Council started to make arrangements for the alternative provision at home for C that had been proposed in June 2018. It then took a further two months to put this in place – a further delay for a child who had already been out of school since December 2017.
73. There were three sessions of home provision in March 2019 before the teacher was dismissed when the Council learnt of a prior dismissal for misconduct. This was very unfortunate, given the amount of education that C had already missed. However, the Council has explained that it relied on a reputable agency when seeking a teacher for C. I do not therefore regard this as fault.
74. The Council then did appoint two further teachers but unfortunately, C found it hard to engage due to the difficult transition from his first teacher and his unwillingness to learn from home.
75. The family have explained that it was not made clear to them when accepting home tuition that this would only be five hours a week provision in Maths and English. The family should have been given sufficient information to reach an informed judgement on whether home tuition would be appropriate for C, particularly given that C would find it difficult to engage with online learning and would need face-to-face tuition.
76. Moreover, five hours provision a week cannot reasonably be considered suitable full-time provision. The Council has explained that it has limited resources and so provision in such cases is generally limited to five hours a week, but lack of resources is not an adequate reason for the Council to fail to meet its statutory duties.
77. Although home tuition had failed since the dismissal of the initial teacher, it was not until the third teacher provided a detailed report in the autumn term of 2019 that the Council clearly identified that C did not want to be taught at home but instead wanted to be at school with his peers. Only at that point did the Council put in place urgent measures to try to get C back into education. This involved updating C’s EHCP which was by then 18 months out-of-date and putting in place a transition plan to try to facilitate C’s re-integration into school with a place at School 2 - which had originally been identified as the appropriate placement for C as far back as his Annual Review in June 2017.
78. Mrs B has also raised concerns that the Council should have contacted local schools before contacting those further away. She has asked why the Council looked into provision at School 3, 1½ hours’ journey away when there was more local provision. However, it appears that there is only limited local MLD provision for a child with ASD which is why the Council explored options further away when it did not appear that a placement at School 2 was a possibility.
79. I have also considered the Council’s responses to Mr and Mrs B’s complaints. Although the complaint responses were apologetic, they contained little real analysis of what had happened. Had that been the case and had there been a greater focus on the time that C had already been out of education, it seems likely that more would have been done to secure C’s return to education. Instead, the first complaint (and the letter to the MP) failed even to identify that C was not currently receiving home tuition. The complaint was not initially escalated through the Council’s procedures, and it was 10 months from the first complaint until long-term provision was in place for C. The Council’s complaints process failed to ensure that there was an adequate action plan to ensure C’s return to education. It also did not offer any remedy to C and his family for the loss of his education for such a prolonged period and the resulting distress.

Back to top

Injustice

80. I have therefore considered what remedy would be appropriate for the injustice caused to C and his family.
81. It is clear that this has been a complex situation for the Council to deal with. But the Council’s duty was to ensure that C was receiving suitable education once it was clear that he would be out of school for more than 15 days and not receiving suitable provision from the school. C was out of school for two years from December 2017. During this time, he had virtually no education or SEN provision as set out in his EHCP.
82. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends a payment of £200-£600 per month in acknowledgement of lost education. Given C’s needs, the complete lack of provision and the time out of education, I consider that the highest end of the recommended range is appropriate. Based on nine months’ schooling a year for two years at £600 per month (18 x £600), I consider that the Council should pay Mr and Mrs B £5,400 for C’s benefit for the loss of his education and SEN provision.
83. In addition, this situation has left C socially isolated and has had a severe impact on his mental health. I therefore consider an additional payment of £1,000 should be made for C’s benefit in recognition of this.
84. I note that Mrs B has explained that she has had to give up her job because of this situation. Given C’s needs, I would not be able to determine whether Mrs B would have had to change her working arrangements or stop working, irrespective of the Council’s actions. I also note that Mr B has had to take leave from work to try to resolve matters. However, I do not consider it unusual for a parent to have to take leave when trying to address matters which affect their child, or that this would warrant a remedy. That said, I consider that the Council should pay Mr and Mrs B £500 in recognition of the distress that this situation has caused them.

Back to top

Agreed action

85. The Council has agreed to the Ombudsman’s recommendations that, within one month of our final decision, it will pay Mr and Mrs B:
• £5,400 for C’s benefit for his loss of education and SEN provision;
• £1,000 for C’s benefit for the distress caused to him; and
• £500 for the distress caused to them.
86. Within three months of our final decision, the Council will carry out an audit of children for whom it has a statutory duty to provide suitable full-time education under s.19 Education Act 1996 to ensure that:
• children are receiving full-time education on a par with their peers, and any provision due in their EHCP;
• provision is not being withheld or restricted due to resources or commissioning gaps;
• where a child is receiving less than full-time education there is medical evidence to support that this is the maximum amount of education they can access and that this is regularly reviewed.
87. Within three months of my final decision, the Council will also review its complaint procedures to ensure that, as part of that process, it considers whether a remedy should be provided for any injustice and what other steps may be necessary to resolve the matter complained about.

Back to top

Final decision

88. I have closed my investigation into Mr and Mrs B’s complaint as I consider that the agreed actions are appropriate to remedy the injustice to C and his family, and to ensure that other families are not similarly affected.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman