Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council failed to make educational provision for the complainant’s child while she was unable to attend school. There is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for her child and secure the delivery of the provision set out in her Education Health and Care (EHC) plan while she was unable to attend school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse effect on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says her daughter was unable to attend the school named in her EHC plan after July 2024. It is her contention that the Council’s duty under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to make appropriate alternative provision was engaged.
6. Mrs X says she asked the Council to make Section 19 provision for her daughter after the Annual Review of her EHC plan in September 2024, by which time she was no longer attending school due to anxiety. She complains that the Council declined to do so but failed to explain its position.
7. An amended EHC plan issued in February 2025 again named the school which Mrs X says her daughter could not attend, with a new placement named for September 2025. Mrs X complains that the school did not communicate with her appropriately, or make appropriate provision for her daughter, and that she was unreasonably threatened with attendance action. As a result, her daughter missed out on the provision and social opportunities to which she was entitled, and the family was caused significant distress.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. The matter turns on whether the school named on Mrs X’s daughter’s EHC plan was appropriate for her and, if not, whether the Council’s Section 19 duty was engaged. These are not matters on which the Ombudsman can take a view.
9. The Council’s response to Mrs X’s complaint clearly explained the reasons for its decision. It did not believe the Section 19 duty was engaged because, in the professional judgement of its officers, the school named in the EHC plan could meet Mrs X’s daughter’s needs. Whether or not this was the case is not a matter for the Ombudsman. If Mrs X disagreed, her recourse was to use her right to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) and it would have been reasonable for her to do so. We cannot find that the professional judgement of the Council’s officers not to accept the Section 19 duty amounted to fault, or intervene to substitute an alternative decision.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman