Summary: Miss Y complains the Council failed to arrange provision for her child, D, once it became aware they were not attending school. She also complains about a refusal to assess D for an Education Health and Care Plan. The Council has already accepted fault and made an appropriate financial remedy for the first part of Miss Y’s complaint. We have not investigated the second part of Miss Y’s complaint because she has already used her right of appeal to the relevant tribunal.

The complaint

1. Miss Y complains the Council failed to provide appropriate education for her child between September 2024 and May 2025.
2. She also complained the Council refused to assess her child for an Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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.
4. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), 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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

6. I have not investigated the complaint about the Council’s refusal to assess D for an EHC plan because that decision carried a right of appeal, which Miss Y has used. For the reasons explained in paragraph four, the Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to consider matters which are subject to a tribunal appeal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

10. Miss Y moved into the Council’s area with her young child, D, in the summer of 2024. D was due to start school Year 1 from September 2024. Miss Y applied to the Council for a school place. In July 2024 Council offered a place at a local school for D to attend from 3 September. However, Miss Y felt it was not the correct school for D, and she therefore refused the Council’s offer on 18 July.
11. Following Miss Y’s refusal of the school place offered, the Council shared a list of local schools with availability in D’s year group.
12. Miss Y enquired about a school and made an in-year application in October 2024; however, the school declined the application due to there being no space in D’s year group. D went onto the waiting list for the school and Miss Y appealed however her appeal was not successful.
13. In the meantime, Miss Y home educated D. She said this was not through choice, but necessity.
14. After professionals became involved in D’s case from January 2025, the Council made an offer of medical tuition from March 2025. The tuition was part-time and increased only to a maximum of four hours a week from April 2025.
15. In May 2025 D received a school offer which Miss Y accepted.
16. Miss Y complained to the Council on 24 June 2025. She said she had previously raised complaints in April 2025, which the Council had failed to respond to.
17. The Council provided its stage one complaints response on 28 July 2025. In summary this said the following.
• The Council apologises for the delays in responding to Miss Y’s complaint.
• The Council accepts there was a failure to support Miss Y once it became clear that D did not have access to education. The Council did not explore other options at the time, such as alternative provision.
• The Council recognised it should have referred D’s case to its ‘Access to Education’ team. The referral would have triggered a review and registration of D as a Child Missing in Education (CME). The referral may have also led to the application of the Fair Access Protocol (FAP).
• The Council listed a range of recent improvements made to the service.
18. Dissatisfied with the complaint response, Miss Y complained again and asked for a review at the second stage of the complaints process. The Council responded on 7 August 2025. The Council echoed the findings made at stage one and again apologised to Miss Y.
19. Miss Y complained again because she felt the Council had not provided any personal remedy for the injustice caused by fault.
20. The Council provided its final response on 16 September 2025. It said the following.
• The Council should have recognised issues sooner and made the necessary referrals to ensure more proactive support for Miss Y. The Council reiterated its apologies.
• The Council also acknowledged the frustration, time and trouble caused by its delayed complaint handling and offered a symbolic payment of £400.
• The Council echoed the recent service improvements made.
• Upon reviewing the case, the Council agreed to offer an additional payment of £3750. The Council explained its offer was based on the LGSCO’s Remedies Guidance and previous published decisions, taking account of D being out of school between September 2024 and May 2025 (2.5 school terms).

Was there fault causing injustice to Miss Y and D?

21. The remedy payment of £3,750 already paid by the Council for D’s missed provision is appropriate. This amount was calculated with reference to the LGSCO’s Remedies Guidance and previous published decisions, taking into account that D was out of education between September 2024 and May 2025, which equates to approximately 2.5 school terms of missed provision.
22. D was in Year 1 during this period. In line with the Remedies Guidance, it is my view that a payment of £1500 per school term is proportionate. The period of education missed by D was not during a key transition or examination year, and there are no additional aggravating factors that justify an increased remedy.
23. The additional payment of £400 for time and trouble is also consistent with the LGSCO’s Remedies Guidance. The Council has also listed several relevant service improvements made since Miss Y’s complaint. In the circumstances, we do not recommend any further remedial action.

Back to top

Decision

24. I find fault causing injustice which the Council has already remedied. We find the remedy already offered is proportionate and we do not recommend anything further.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman