Summary: Mrs B complained that the Council misadvised her that it would provide transport for her son, C to attend a placement if she agreed to electively home educate him for a temporary period. She also complained the Council failed to provide education during this period and failed to communicate with her or deal with her complaint properly. We found fault in the actions of the Council. The Council has agreed to apologise to Mrs B and C and make a symbolic payment of £1000.

The complaint

1. Mrs B complained that Cornwall Council (the Council) in respect of her son, C:
• misadvised her that if she agreed to elective home education the Council would still be able to provide transport for C to get to a new placement in September 2024;
• has not provided C with any education for over a year;
• admitted to human error and offered her £200 but not explained what the error was; and
• failed to communicate properly with Mrs B throughout the period or deal with her complaint adequately
2. Mrs B said this caused C to miss out on education for a prolonged period and significant distress to her along with the financial impact of paying for private provision.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. 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

5. I have investigated the period from February 2024 (when the draft EHC Plan was issued) to 28 November 2024 (when Mrs B complained to us). Although Mrs B had a right of appeal against the placement named in Section I from 10 June 2024 I do not consider it was reasonable for her to appeal as she had agreed to EHE on the basis of misleading information.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

6. I considered evidence provided by Mrs B and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
7. Mrs B and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
8. 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

Special educational needs

9. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 

Elective Home Education

10. Parents have a right to educate their children at home (Section 7, Education Act 1996). This can include the use of tutors or parental support groups. Elective home education is distinct from education provided by a council otherwise than at school, for example when a child is too ill to attend. In choosing to educate a child at home, the parents take on financial responsibility for any costs involved, including examination and transport costs.

What happened

11. Mrs B’s son C has special educational needs and an EHC Plan. Following a review in late 2023, the Council issued a draft EHC Plan in February 2024 and consulted with his current school, School X. On 5 April 2024 School X agreed to be named on the Plan.
12. On 18 April Mrs B emailed the Council asking to urgently discuss the possibility of deregistering C from School X so he could attend a different placement, School Y, which only accepted students who were electively home educated (EHE). She said School X had agreed that the current placement had broken down and C was not able to attend. She said if this was not possible, she would like to consider a package of Education Other than At School (EOTAS).
13. On 21 May Mrs B formally responded to the draft EHC Plan requesting to name School Y.
14. On 29 May the Council’s caseworker emailed Mrs B to explain that if she agreed to EHE and School Y, it would be up to School Y and her to arrange course access. The email also included information from School Y’s website which said it could not provide transport and all costs and arrangements for travel are expected to be met by the parent. On the same day a different, more senior officer, from the Council emailed Mrs B and said the following:

“I am emailing regarding your enquiry via a third party about deregistration so that [C] can take up a Level 2 course at a different school. Please be reassured that any decision that you take will not affect the EHCP process or the transport application. This process will remain the same.”

15. Mrs B emailed a more senior officer the same day to check that C would receive transport if he changed placement to School Y. The officer replied: “Yes it is all correct”.
16. Mrs B then agreed for the Council to name EHE on the EHC Plan so that she could deregister him from School X. The Council issued the final EHC Plan on 10 June saying that C’s designated school was School X but stating that Mrs B had agreed to EHE.
17. On 5 August the Council refused Mrs B’s application for travel assistance to School Y because it was not an eligible school defined in the Council’s travel assistance policy.
18. Mrs B appealed the decision. The Council confirmed on 27 August that the original decision stood.
19. On 30 August the Council provided further explanation for its decision: namely that in agreeing to electively home educate C, Mrs B was responsible for all the costs of education including transport. It referred to the caseworker’s email of 29 May in support of its view.
20. Mrs B continued to express her dissatisfaction with the Council’s actions and said she had received assurances from senior officers during meetings and telephone calls and confirmed in emails, that it would provide transport assistance to School Y. She said EHE had been forced on her due to the problems C experienced at School X and the lack of support.
21. On 2 September the Council, while stating that its decision on the transport issue stood, said it accepted that some of the previous information provided to Mrs B was not clear; in particular the email from a senior officer on 29 May stating that the transport process would remain the same and Mrs B’s subsequent conversations with a different senior officer who confirmed C would receive transport. The Council offered to meet with Mrs B and said it would offer a financial remedy of £200 for the confusion as she had been misinformed.
22. Following the meeting where the Council offered Mrs B an apology and £200, Mrs B made a formal complaint on 23 September. She also complained to us on 28 November, but we sent the complaint back to the Council for it to respond.
23. The Council responded on 2 December. It partially upheld her complaint that the Council had not provided a resolution for C’s loss of education. But it said there was no evidence on the files that the Council gave any advice to take C out of school and opt for EHE. It said work was underway to get C back on the roll of a mainstream school so he could access education. It did not uphold her complaint about the inadequacy of an apology for the poor communication. It said the Council’s polices on EHE and access to transport were clear: any child who was EHE was not eligible for funded transport. It said the Council had apologised for the human error and offered a financial remedy for the misunderstanding. It upheld her complaint that no one had contacted her about C’s ongoing provision.
24. Mrs B requested a stage two review of her complaint. In January 2025 the Council refused this saying that Mrs B had not provided any new information. Mrs B complained to us again in May 2025.

Findings

The Council misadvised Mrs B that if she agreed to elective home education the Council would still be able to provide transport for C to get to a new placement in September 2024

25. Mrs B requested EHE as a way of getting C a place at School Y. She believed that the Council would fund transport to School Y and this was the only route to get C back into education. If she had known in May 2024 that the Council was never going to fund transport to School Y, she would not have agreed to EHE and would have looked for an alternative placement.
26. Because transport was key to her decision, she did her best to confirm that the Council would provide transport. I do not consider the Council provided clear and unequivocal information on this point. It did not explain at the outset in clear language that School Y was not an eligible school for funded transport. That seems a straightforward fact which it could and should have explained to Mrs B in May 2024.
27. The caseworker’s email of 29 May 2024 was a good attempt to explain the situation. But rather than saying that the Council would not, or was very unlikely to, provide transport they said it was up to School Y and Mrs B to arrange ‘course access’. I do not consider this was clear enough.
28. The second email to Mrs B on 29 May was equally confusing simply stating that the transport process would remain the same. Following Mrs B’s further attempt to confirm the situation in writing she received an email from another senior officer implying the Council would provide transport. This was incorrect and caused Mrs B to agree to EHE. This failure to provide accurate information on a key issue was fault which caused Mrs B frustration and distress and C to miss out on education for approximately three months from September 2024.

The Council has not provided C with any education for over a year

29. As Mrs B agreed to EHE it was her responsibility to provide C with education. Mrs B thought this would be for a temporary period only, until C could start at School Y in September 2024. However, without transport he was unable to attend and remained out of education up to the end point of my investigation (28 November 2024). If she had known the transport situation sooner, she would not have agreed to EHE and it is likely the search for an alternative placement would have begun sooner. If she had not agreed to EHE the Council would have had a duty to provide C with suitable education.

The Council admitted to human error and offered her £200 but has not explained what the error was

30. The Council acknowledged that the email from a senior officer on 29 May 2024 lacked clarity and the email from a different senior officer on the same day was wrong. For this it offered her an apology and £200 prior to Mrs B making a formal complaint. However, the Council did not acknowledge, either at this point or during its consideration of the formal complaint, the impact this misleading information had on Mrs B’s decision regarding C’s education. It insisted that the Council had never given incorrect information in writing regarding EHE or transport even though Mrs B had received an email confirming that transport would be provided. This was fault which caused Mrs B frustration and distress.

The Council failed to communicate properly with Mrs B throughout the period or deal with her complaint adequately

31. Following the decision to refuse transport I consider the Council’s informal communication with Mrs B was a genuine attempt to understand and resolve the problem, including meeting with Mrs B and her advocate. However, the Council took over two months to respond to her formal complaint and then did not properly acknowledge the fault or consider the full consequences of it. It also refused to consider the complaint at stage two causing Mrs B to have to complain to us. This was further fault which exacerbated the injustice to Mrs B.
32. The Council also accepted that from September 2024 it failed to take any action to find C an alternative placement. I agree this was further fault which contributed to the delay in getting C back into education.

Back to top

Action

33. I welcome the Council’s offer of a financial remedy, but I do not consider it is sufficient for the injustice caused. So, I recommend the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision:
• apologises to Mrs B and C and makes a symbolic payment of £1000 to recognise the injustice caused.
34. The Council has agreed to my recommendation and should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman