Summary: We found there was a failure to provide a suitable full-time education for Mr X’s son, Y, between February 2024 and April 2025. We also found there was fault in the Council’s handling of Mr X’s complaints. The Council had already apologised for issues in its complaint response. We recommended a payment to reflect the education that Y missed.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide a suitable education for his son when he was unable to attend school from January 2024.
2. He also complained that the Council’s communication was poor when he followed up his concerns and the Council was not honest with him about what was happening.
3. Mr X complains the time out of school set back his son’s education and the issues with communication have caused stress.

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 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)
5. 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)
6. When considering complaints, we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
7. 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

How I considered this complaint

8. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
9. Mr X and the organisation had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Section 19 of the Education Act 1996

10. Section 19 of the Education Act states councils must arrange suitable education at school or elsewhere for pupils who are out of school because of exclusion, illness or for other reasons, if they would not receive suitable education without such arrangements. [The provision generally should be full-time unless it is not in the child’s interests.] (Education Act 1996, section 19). We refer to this as section 19 or alternative education provision.

Our Focus Report ‘Out of school, out of sight’ updated August 2023

11. We have issued guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to provide education for children who, for whatever reason, do not attend school full-time.
12. We made six recommendations. Councils should:

• consider the individual circumstances of each case and be aware that a council may need to act whatever the reason for absence (except for 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 when making decisions;
• choose (based on all the evidence) whether to require attendance at school or provide the child with suitable alternative provision:
• keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing it if a child’s capacity to learn increases:
• work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to mainstream education as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary:
• put the chosen action into practice without delay to ensure the child is back in education as soon as possible.

What Happened

13. The information in this statement provides an overview of the key events most relevant to the complaint. It is not intended to set out everything that happened.
14. Mr X complains about his son’s education. I have referred to his son as Y in this statement.
15. Y has an Education Health and Care Plan (EHC Plan) and he was attending the school named in his plan up until late January 2024 (School A). In late January Y was assaulted by other pupils who attend the same school. The incident happened elsewhere.
16. A strategy meeting took place on 25 January. The Council says it was informed Y would be away with family for two weeks and the plan was for Y to then return to School A.
17. The Council says a review of Y’s EHC Plan took place on 7 February. At the review meeting School A stated it could continue to meet Y’s needs. However, Mr X and the Council agreed, due to concerns for Y’s safety, he would not return to the school. The Council says instead, it was agreed that Y would remain on the roll of School A, but he would actually receive education from a community-based education provider (Provider B).
18. From February, Provider B were engaged via the school to provide an education for Y. There is reference to Y attending sessions with Provider B. However, we asked the Council what the education through Provider B consisted of and how it satisfied itself that it was appropriate. The Council told us it was 15 hours per week based in the community. It did not indicate it had been aware of the content or assessed its suitability.
19. From February the Council began consulting other schools with a view to finding a new placement for Y.
20. In September 2024, Mr X expressed concerns around Provider B. Mr X told us he had not been satisfied that Provider B’s staff were appropriately qualified to work with Y. As a result, School A stated it offered alternative outreach through their own staff team. It is not clear what this was.
21. On 10 October 2024 a further annual review of Y’s EHC Plan took place. The Council says School A could still meet needs, but as it was apparent that Mr X no longer wished Y to attend, the placement at School A was withdrawn. The Council says, in October 2024 it contacted a Pupil Referral Unit (School C). The intention was for School C to provide education under the Council’s Section 19 duty.
22. It appears Y did not attend School C. Rather the school visited Y at home to carry out EHC Plan assessments. The Council told Mr X that School C emailed them in February 2025 to say that ‘the assessment process’ was complete. The Council followed this up in March 2025 and received annual review papers/an assessment of Y’s needs, which I understand School C had carried out. These were dated January 2025.
23. Mr X contended that the Council received these review papers sooner. However, the Council stated it had carried out searches and found no evidence of this. In any case, the information in the January 2025 papers indicated School C was no longer ‘working with’ Y. It appears the Council had understood School C would be providing an alternative education, whereas School C had seemingly only assisted with assessing Y’s needs to inform the content of a new EHC Plan.
24. When the Council became aware School C was not providing an education for Y, it arranged home tuition which began on 21 April. This was initially for 10 hours per week with a view to it increasing. In July 2025 a new school was named in Y’s EHC Plan to begin from September 2025.
25. We asked the Council if it considered whether any of Y’s EHC Plan support could be provided while Y was receiving education from other providers and not attending school. It did not indicate this had been considered.

Communication

26. At various points during the events of Mr X’s complaint, he challenged the information the Council provided in response to his queries. Mr X considered the Council had given inaccurate information to him at various points. The complaint correspondence refers to inaccurate information being provided, emails not being passed onto staff (which delayed their response) and emails not being received properly.
27. The Council acknowledged that contradictory information had been sent to Mr X. However, it stated this had not been deliberate and officers had not attempted to lie about events or when information had been known. The Council noted there were staffing issues and high workloads which it says was the cause of some difficulties. Nevertheless, the Council apologised for delays in moving things forward in Y’s case and upheld Mr X’s complaint as a result of this.

What should have happened

28. If a pupil is not attending school we expect councils to consider their individual circumstances and determine whether it is reasonably practicable for them to attend the school place they have. In reaching this decision we would expect the Council to take account of any medical or mental health issues the child is experiencing and whether the school can meet the child’s needs. In the event that a child does not continue to attend their school place, we expect the Council to satisfy itself that any part-time or alternative education being proposed is suitable and to ensure this is increased to full-time education as soon as possible unless this is not appropriate.
29. If a child has an EHC Plan we would generally expect a review of that plan to be carried out in the event of a child not attending school, to determine if their needs had changed or different support was needed.
30. We found it was appropriate that an EHC Plan review was conducted soon after the assault on Y to assess the situation, review Y’s support and determine whether the school remained able to meet Y’s needs.
31. In Y’s case it was determined that the school could meet need, but it was also agreed that Y would not attend and the school would provide an alternative education via Provider B. In principle, there was no fault in the decision to do this. However, we found it was not clear what education was being provided by Provider B. It was also not clear why Y could not receive a full-time education. There is no evidence that anyone from School A or the Council satisfied themselves that the education being provided by Provider B was suitable. Mr X was concerned that it was not.
32. Based on the evidence we have received, we found, on balance, the education Y received from Provider B between February 2024 and October 2024 was not suitable. This was fault.
33. From October 2024 the Council referred Y to a PRU, School C. However, again, it seems evident that the Council did not establish what education School C was providing, or if it had begun providing an education at all. It follows, that it was also not established whether any provision was or should be full-time education. It appears that, following the referral, the Council assumed School C had begun provision when, in fact it had not. As a result, Y did not receive a suitable education between late October 2024 and late April 2025. This was further fault.
34. We note that home tuition took place between April 2025 and the end of July 2025, at which point a new school was named in Y’s EHC Plan.
35. Overall, we found Y had missed a suitable education between February 2024 and April 2025. This was just over three terms of education. Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The figure is based on the impact on the child and takes account of factors such as the child’s special educational needs, any educational provision or support they did receive (full-time or part-time) and whether additional provision can now remedy some or all of the loss.
36. In Y’s case, as he has special educational needs, I have recommended £1,800 per term, for three terms to recognise the loss of education. This is a total of £5,400.
37. The symbolic payment we recommend is intended to remedy injustice caused to the child from missing provision, as well as the consequential injustice also caused to the family due to this fault, for example; the additional caring responsibilities that occur from a child being out of education and avoidable disruption to daily routine. 

Back to top

Action

38. Within four weeks of my final decision:
39. The Council should send a written apology to Mr and Mrs X and Y for the failure to ensure he received a suitable full-time education between February 2024 and April 2025. The apology should adhere to our guidance on making effective apologies. This can be found on our website, within our Guidance on Remedy here.
40. To recognise that Y lost out on a suitable education between February 2024 and April 2025, the Council should pay Mr X £5,400.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman