Summary: The Council failed to put in place education for Mrs X’s son when it knew he could not attend school due to medical reasons and wrongly pursued Mrs X for attendance issues. That meant Mrs X’s son missed out on education and Mrs X experienced distress. An apology, payment to Mrs X and guidance for officers is satisfactory remedy.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complained the Council:
• failed to put in place education for her son when it knew he could not attend school due to medical reasons; and
• pursued her for failing to get her son to attend when it knew the school had not put the required provision in place to enable him to do so.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s actions caused her distress and meant her son missed out on education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, as amended)
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. 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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
6. 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(i), as amended)
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

What I have and have not investigated

8. My investigation concerns the period between July 2024 and October 2025. July 2024 is when the educational psychologist completed a report which recommended some steps for the school to take to provide education to Mrs X’s son outside of school before seeking to reintegrate him. I cannot investigate any failure to provide education after the Council issued an education, health and care plan (EHC Plan) on 7 October 2025 as Mrs X had a right of appeal at that point.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

9. As part of the investigation, I have:
• considered the complaint and Mrs X's comments;
• made enquiries of the Council and considered the comments and documents the Council provided.
10. Mrs 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

Education

11. The Education Act 1996 (Section 19) says education authorities must make suitable educational provision for children of compulsory school age who are absent from school because of illness, exclusion or otherwise. The provision can be at a school or otherwise, but must be suitable for the child's age, ability and aptitude, including any special needs.

The Council’s policy on education for children unable to attend school due to health needs, exclusion or otherwise

12. This policy outlines the Council’s approach to ensuring children of compulsory school age who are unable to attend school due to health needs, exclusion or other significant reasons receive a suitable and effective education. It refers to various legal frameworks which includes section 19 of the Education Act 1996.
13. In accordance with section 19 of the Education Act 1996 the local authority is responsible for arranging suitable full-time education (or as much as the child’s health permits) for children who cannot attend school due to medical needs, exclusion or other circumstances. This duty must be initiated promptly once it becomes evident a child will be absent for 15 school days or more, whether consecutively or cumulatively. Educational provision may be delivered within a school setting or through alternative arrangements.
14. Where school provision and alternative provision from the Council’s approved framework is not possible no child would be left without suitable educational provision. Alternative solutions would be sought by the local authority’s brokerage team.

What happened

15. Mrs X’s son has special educational needs and was attending a mainstream school. Mrs X asked the Council to complete an education, health and care needs assessment (EHCNA) in April 2024. The Council agreed to complete an EHCNA. As part of that an educational psychologist produced a report. That report recommended a very gradual approach to reintegration for Mrs X’s son. That involved building a rapport with a trusted adult from the educational setting ideally at home or in a familiar setting initially and that person would then become his secure base once he felt able to attend in person. That would be followed by a gradual reintroduction to in person attendance on a phased return and a slow transition.
16. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 10 September to say it did not intend to issue an EHC Plan (EHC Plan). That was because the Council considered Mrs X’s son’s needs could be met through the local offer, alongside the school carrying out the recommendations from the educational psychologist. Mrs X appealed.
17. In October 2024 Mrs X told the Council she had met with the school but the only option they had given needed her son to attend school which did not meet his needs. Mrs X explained she could not sign the proposed attendance contract when that would set her son up to fail.
18. The school contacted the Council about Mrs X’s son’s attendance in November 2024.
19. In January 2025 Mrs X’s representative raised concerns about the school not putting in place the provision recommended by the educational psychologist.
20. Later in January the Council issued a warning letter to Mrs X about her son’s attendance. That letter told Mrs X about possible action the Council could take if she did not send her son to school which included legal action. The letter asked Mrs X and her son to attend an attendance panel meeting at the school. In response to that Mrs X’s representative put in a complaint which raised concerns about the Council’s approach and again referred to the recommendations from the educational psychologist which the school had not implemented.
21. At the end of January the school told the Council it had not carried out the educational psychology recommendations. The school said because Mrs X’s son had shown he could attend school for a phased return the suggestion to arrange learning at home would be a step backwards. The Council clarified what she had recommended with the educational psychologist.
22. The Council met with the family and representatives from the school in February 2025. During that meeting Mrs X said she felt a school setting was off the table and her son needed tuition or alternative provision. The Council provided Mrs X with some potential options.
23. The Council responded to the complaint at stage one in March 2025. The Council told Mrs X it had recommended the school seek a further educational psychology report.
24. Following a further complaint the Council responded at stage two in June 2025. In that letter the Council accepted the school had not put in place the educational psychologist’s recommendations and had not sought an updated report. The Council said the school must work from the existing report and should commission a further educational psychologist report to decide longer term support. The Council also said the school should consider referring Mrs X’s son to the newly established section 19 panel for the Council to decide whether he could be supported through its section 19 duties. The Council also agreed to retract the statement that Mrs X had not engaged with the school and Council as there was no evidence of widespread lack of engagement.
25. The Council said the case had highlighted a lack of clarity on the process for a school to identify a child for provision under section 19. The letter said the Council would set up a clear process for referrals and a panel to consider referrals to decide whether a child met the criteria for section 19 support funded by the Council or whether the school should deliver the support.
26. In August 2025 the tribunal decided the Council should issue an EHC Plan for Mrs X’s son. The Council issued an EHC Plan on 7 October.

Analysis

27. Mrs X says the Council failed to put in place education for her son when it knew he could not attend school because of unmet special educational needs. The Council accepts it failed to follow its policy for children not attending school due to medical reasons. The Council also accepts it failed to discharge its statutory duties under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 by not securing a suitable education for Mrs X’s son. The Council accepts because of its failures Mrs X’s son missed four terms of education. The Council offered a financial remedy of £1,650 per term in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. That equates to £6,600.
28. I am concerned about the Council’s failure to identify its section 19 duties in this case and its failure to follow its policy for children not attending school due to medical reasons. As the Council has acknowledged, it had evidence Mrs X’s son was not attending school due to medical reasons. The Council also had information from an educational psychologist report which showed Mrs X’s son needed a slow reintegration into school which would begin with out of school provision. The Council also knew the school had not put that into place. I am concerned the Council failed to recognise all that which led to it failing to consider its section 19 responsibilities. That is fault and I welcome the Council’s willingness to admit fault here. I am concerned though it has taken until the Council’s response to my enquiry on this complaint to reach that point and offer a remedy for the complaint given the Council had an opportunity to identify its failures when responding to the complaint. That is also fault.
29. I am also concerned the Council issued Mrs X a warning letter in January 2025 about her son’s attendance. I consider the Council at fault for issuing that warning letter. That is because the Council had told Mrs X it had decided not to issue an EHC Plan following the EHCNA partly because it believed the school could put in place the arrangements recommended by the educational psychologist. The Council also knew before January 2025 the school had not put those arrangements in place and had not sought an alternative educational psychologist opinion. In those circumstances I consider the Council at fault for issuing the warning letter to Mrs X which undoubtedly caused her significant distress.
30. The Ombudsman normally recommends an amount between £900 per term and £2,400 per term for missed education. In this case I consider the Council’s offer of £6,600 an appropriate remedy for the missing education and the distress that caused Mrs X. That takes into account the fact Mrs X’s son did not receive any education for four terms but also that it is unlikely Mrs X’s son would have been able to access full-time provision due to the length of time he had been out of education and his mental health difficulties.
31. I also recommended the Council pay Mrs X an extra £300 to recognise her distress because of receiving a warning letter about her son’s attendance. That makes a total financial remedy of £6,900. I further recommended the Council apologise to Mrs X. The Council has agreed to my recommendations.
32. I note the Council has set up a new section 19 panel and reviewed the process for schools to refer children for section 19 provisions. I welcome that. I am not convinced though this alone is enough in this case as it was not the lack of a proper process for the school that led to the issues Mrs X raised. As part of the remedy for this complaint I therefore recommended the Council provide guidance to officers dealing with attendance issues about the factors to consider before issuing warning letters to parents with children not attending school. The Council has agreed to my recommendation.

Back to top

Action

33. Within one month of my decision the Council should:
• apologise to Mrs X for the distress she experienced due to the faults identified in this decision. The Council may want to refer to the Ombudsman’s updated guidance on remedies, which sets out the standards we expect apologies to meet;
• pay Mrs X £6,900; and
• provide guidance to officers on the factors to consider before issuing attendance warning letters to parents when a child is not attending school.
34. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Final decision

35. I find fault causing injustice. The Council will take action to remedy the injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman