Summary: Miss X complained that the Council in respect of her son Y had delayed in completing an Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and issuing a final EHC Plan. It had also failed to consider alternative educational provision for Y and failed to ensure Miss X was reimbursed for alternative education she had funded while Y was unable to attend school. We found fault in the Council’s actions. The Council has agreed to ensure the refund is made to Miss X, apologise to her and Y and make a symbolic payment.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained that Oxfordshire County Council (the Council):
• failed to make appropriate Alternative Provision for her son, Y, while he was unable to attend school;
• delayed completing the Education, Health and Care (EHC) needs assessment and EHC Plan;
• unreasonably named a mainstream educational placement; and
• failed to communicate adequately with her during the whole process.
2. As a result, She says Y has missed out on education to which he was entitled and she has been caused distress, uncertainty and financial loss.

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 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.
5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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

8. I have not investigated point three of Miss X’s complaint as she appealed to the Tribunal about the placement named in the EHC Plan.
9. I have only investigated the complaint from July 2024, 12 months before Miss X complained to us. There are no good reasons to investigate earlier events.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

10. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
11. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
12. 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

Special educational needs

13. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. This document sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The EHC Plan is set out in sections. We cannot direct changes to the sections about their needs, education, or the name of the educational placement. Only the Tribunal or the council can do this. 

EHC needs assessment 

14. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’) sets out the process for carrying out EHC assessments and producing EHC Plans. The guidance is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014. It says the following: 

• Where the council receives a request for an EHC needs assessment it must decide whether to agree to the assessment and send its decision to the parent of the child or the young person within six weeks. 
• The process of assessing needs and developing EHC Plans “must be carried out in a timely manner”. Steps must be completed as soon as practicable. 
• If the council goes on to carry out an assessment, it must decide whether to issue an EHC Plan or refuse to issue a Plan within 16 weeks.
• If the council goes on to issue an EHC Plan, the whole process from the point when an assessment is requested until the final EHC Plan is issued must take no more than 20 weeks (unless certain specific circumstances apply).  

Alternative provision

15. 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.
16. 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.
17. If a council wants to see medical or other evidence, it should ask for it at the earliest opportunity. The council should account for any challenges a parent might have in obtaining evidence, and review its position based on any new evidence it receives.
18. 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.

What happened

Background

19. Miss X’s son Y started at a mainstream secondary school in September 2023 and struggled to attend. The Council made some adjustments to modify the learning environment and provide additional support. This included a reduced timetable, support from a teaching assistant and advice from the special educational needs team.
20. In December 2023 Miss X obtained a private educational psychology (EP) report which said a mainstream secondary environment was not suitable for Y.

EHC needs assessment

21. In February 2024 Miss X requested an EHC needs assessment. The Council agreed to the assessment on 3 April and obtained an EP report on 10 May. It issued a draft EHC Plan on 19 July. Miss X named her preferred school, a specialist placement. The Council sent out consultations to a number of schools including Miss X’s preference, on 30 July. It said to Miss X that the Council’s placement panel had decided that mainstream provision would be suitable for Y.
22. Miss X chased the Council several times in September, and the caseworker left a voicemail on 12 September confirming that she had sent an amended draft to her manager for approval but the decision on mainstream still stood. A new caseworker contacted her on 3 October to say they were issuing a final EHC Plan naming Y’s current school. They said the previous caseworker was absent due to sickness and they were unable to find her notes on the suggested amendments.
23. The Council issued the final EHC Plan on 3 October 2024, naming Y’s current school. Miss X appealed.

Alternative provision

24. In January 2025 the school started funding alternative educational provision for Y.

Complaint

25. At the end of April 2025 Miss X made a formal complaint to the Council about the delay in the EHC needs assessment. She said she had paid for alternative provision during the period of delay. She also said she was unhappy with the communication from the Council during this period. She didn’t receive any contact until after the 20 week deadline had expired and had to chase the Council several times in September 2024.
26. The Council responded at the end of May 2025. It agreed it had not provided alternative education when Y was unable to attend school and would ensure the school refunded the £1470 Miss X had paid for her own provision. The Council also offered an additional £500 for the distress and time and trouble. It did not uphold the complaint about communication. It apologised for the delay in the EHC process but did not consider it had a detrimental impact on Y’s access to education so no financial redress was required.
27. Miss X escalated her complaint to stage two of the Council’s complaints procedure. She provided evidence of poor communication after October 2024. The Council responded to the complaint on 19 June 2025. It said it acknowledged that Y had not been in full-time education for the previous two years and that Miss X had been funding a range of provision for the past 18 months. In addition to the reimbursement of £1470 previously agreed, it recommended reimbursement of an additional £1587, making a total of £3,057.
28. The Council also acknowledged and apologised for the delay in completing the needs assessment. It said there was no evidence that Miss X needed to fund alternative provision and the Council said it made an immediate request for the school to put alternative provision in place once the EHC Plan was finalised. It said that if Miss X provided any further invoices or receipts for the period of delay from July to October 2024 it would consider refunding them. The Council did not uphold the complaint about poor communication.
29. Miss X complained to us in July 2025.
30. In September 2025 the Tribunal issued a consent order agreeing to a specialist placement for Y.
31. In October 2025 Miss X said she had not received any reimbursement from either the school or the Council.
32. In its response to my enquiries in March 2026, the Council has confirmed that the school has not reimbursed any of the money but that the Council was working with the school to ensure payment is made as soon as possible. It also offered a written apology and an additional £300 for time and trouble and distress.

Findings

Period after 3 October 2024.

33. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
34. This means that if a child or young person is not attending school, and we decide the reason for non-attendance is linked to, or is a consequence of, a parent or young person’s disagreement about the special educational provision or the educational placement in the EHC Plan, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision.
35. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents or young person. If the parent or young person goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the Tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded.
36. This means I have not investigated the period after 3 October 2024 as Miss X had a right of appeal to the Tribunal from this date against the named placement.

Delay in EHC assessment

37. The Council should have issued a final EHC Plan by 14 July 2024. It did not do so until 3 October 2024, a delay of almost three months. This was fault which caused distress to Miss X and uncertainty as to whether Y missed out on essential support. It also delayed her opportunity to appeal to the Tribunal.

Alternative Provision

38. I agree the Council failed to consider its section 19 duty from July 2024 until 3 October 2024. This was fault which caused uncertainty as to whether Y missed out on essential education and support. It also caused distress and financial hardship to Miss X as she funded her own provision throughout this period.

Reimbursement of agreed costs

39. I note the Council agreed in June 2025 to ensure the school reimbursed Miss X for the alternative provision she funded, totalling of £3057. While much of this falls outside the period of my investigation I consider the Council should have ensured the money was paid at least within one month of its stage two response, ie by 19 July 2025. It is the Council’s responsibility, not the school’s, to ensure section 19 provision is in place and so I consider it is the Council’s responsibility to ensure any financial redress is paid. The delay of over nine months in making this payment is fault which caused, and continues to cause, Miss X distress and financial hardship.

Communication

40. I appreciate Miss X experienced frustration over a long period in dealing with the Council. However, the evidence of communication between July and October 2024 does not show there were long gaps. I have not found fault with communication during this period.

Back to top

Action

41. In recognition of the injustice caused to Miss X and Y, I recommended the Council, within one month of the date of my final decision;
• apologises to Miss X and Y.
• pays Miss X £3057 and obtains the reimbursement from the school directly; and
• pays Miss X and Y £500 for the uncertainty and distress. I note the Council offered £300 in it response to my enquiries. However, as it offered £500 in its stage one complaint response I believe it should pay this amount as it is a more appropriate payment in line with our Guidance on Remedies for the distress and loss of education.
42. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

43. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed actions to remedy injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman