Summary: Mrs X complained that the Council did not arrange alternative provision when her son was not attending school. We are satisfied the Council acted in line with its statutory duties, and we have found no fault.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains that the Council refused to arrange alternative provision for her son, Y. She says the provision offered by the school was not accessible to him. As a result, she arranged and paid for alternative provision herself and would like the Council to reimburse these costs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. 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

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law and guidance.
5. Mrs X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Law and Guidance

6. A child with special educational needs may have an EHC plan. This document describes the arrangements which should be made to meet the child’s needs. (SEND Code of Practice 2015)
7. 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 make the school inaccessible to the child. The alternative educational provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.
8. 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 evidence from relevant parties (such as the child’s school, parents, and medical professionals). It must then decide whether it has a duty to make alternative educational provision.
9. 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.
10. Our guidance, Supporting children out of school (October 2005) says that councils should consider all the reasons for a child’s absence from school, and make a written evidence-based decision about whether it will arrange alternative education provision.
11. The DfE guidance, Working Together to Improve School Attendance, states all pupils of compulsory school age are entitled to a full-time education. In very exceptional circumstances there may be a need for a temporary part-time timetable to meet a pupil’s individual needs. For example, where a medical condition prevents a pupil from attending full-time education and a part-time timetable is considered as part of a re-integration package. A part-time timetable must not be treated as a long-term solution.
12. If school or college is not appropriate for the child or young person with an EHC Plan (for either all or part of their education), the council can arrange for any special educational provision which the child or young person requires to be delivered somewhere other than in a school, college or early years setting. This is known as ‘education otherwise than at school’ (EOTAS). (Children and Families Act 2014 section 61(1)) 

What happened

13. In September 2024, Y moved to a new school following a parental request.
14. In November 2024, Y’s annual review noted his attendance was 73%. The school said this reflected that Y had started a bespoke timetable due to anxiety. The review recorded he was making good progress towards returning to full-time education.
15. At the end of March 2025, the school raised concerns with the Council about Y’s attendance and the longer-term suitability of the placement.
16. In early April 2025, the Council provided advice to the school in response to these concerns.
17. At the end of April 2025, an early annual review was held at Mrs X’s request. The review recorded that Y’s attendance had reduced to 50% and this was now a concern. The school said Y had refused to attend school for any meaningful amount of time during the spring term.
18. During this period, the school proposed a number of alternative provision options. Mrs X declined these as she considered them unsuitable due to the distance from the family home. She asked that the school offer provision closer to home.
19. Y remained on roll at the school during this period.
20. In early May 2025, the Council agreed to arrange an educational psychologist assessment to inform potential amendments to Y’s EHC plan. This followed Mrs X’s request for an EOTAS package.
21. In mid-May, Mrs X contacted the Council to say Y was not attending school, and that she had identified tutors she wanted the Council to fund. The Council considered Mrs X’s request. This was the first notification the Council had received that Y was no longer attending school.
22. Around a week later, Mrs X made a complaint to the Council. She said the Council should fulfil its statutory duty to provide Y with a suitable full-time education as he was out of education and she was funding a tutor herself.
23. The Council responded at the end of May 2025. It said the tutors Mrs X proposed had not been commissioned by the Council or quality assured by the school. It also said funding cookery lessons would not meet Y’s academic needs. The Council said that it considered the alternative provision offered by the school to be appropriate and that its statutory duties had been met.
24. In early June 2025, the educational psychologist carried out an assessment of Y.
25. Around a week later, the Council gave the school formal notice that Y’s placement would end.
26. At the end of June 2025, the Council issued an amended EHC plan.

My findings

27. Councils are not expected to become involved in situations where a child can still attend school with some support, or where a school has made arrangements to deliver suitable alternative educational provision.
28. In situations where a Council decides not to arrange alternative provision, we would expect it to provide evidence that it has objectively considered whether the education arranged by the school is suitable.
29. In this case, I find the Council has provided evidence that it considered the education offered by the school and I find no fault in its decision.
30. Before the Council became aware of any concerns, the school was supporting Y through a reduced timetable as part of a reintegration plan due to his anxiety. The Council became aware of attendance and placement concerns at the end of March 2025 and monitored the situation through the annual review process.
31. Even once the Council realised that Y was not attending full-time, the school had already offered suitable alternative provision, and Y remained on roll. I am satisfied that the Council was not at fault for deciding not to arrange alternative provision.
32. Mrs X arranged tuition for Y privately and asked the Council to fund this. At the time, Y remained on roll at the school and the school had offered a range of alternative provision to support his education, including options in the locality to support his education.
33. Mrs X declined these options because she considered them unsuitable due to the distance from her home. The Council was entitled to decide whether its offer of alternative provision was suitable, and also to decide that it did not need to fund the tutors Mrs X had arranged herself. I have seen no evidence of fault.

Back to top

Decision

34. I find no fault with the Council’s actions and am satisfied that it fulfilled its statutory duties.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman