Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure a school placement for her child, failed to make suitable education provision, or meet their needs as specified in their Education, Health and Care Plan for a significant period. This caused Miss X significant distress, frustration and uncertainty, and her child missed out on education and support they were entitled to. We found the Council at fault. The Council agreed to apologise, make symbolic payments to recognise the injustice, and take action to improve its service.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains her child has had very limited education for several years, the Council failed to find a suitable placement for them, and it failed to provide Section F provision as outlined in their Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She says this has caused significant frustration, uncertainty and distress for the family, and she says her child’s emotional, social and mental wellbeing has been severely affected.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
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. 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)
5. 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

6. Miss X refers to her child being out of school for several years. Miss X complained to us in August 2025. Part of the complaint is therefore late (see Paragraph 3). I will not consider that far back as I am satisfied there are no good reasons why Miss X could not have formally complained, or come to us sooner, about this earlier period.
7. I have considered events from August 2024 (12 months before coming to us) to September 2025 (when Miss X received the Council’s final response to her formal complaint).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

8. I discussed the complaint with Miss X and considered her views.
9. I made enquiries of the Council and considered its written responses and information it provided, as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
10. Miss X and the Council 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

Law and administrative background

Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plans

11. A child 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. The council has a duty to make sure the child receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act).

Alternative provision

12. 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.
13. If the council decides it must arrange alternative provision, it needs to arrange provision based on the child’s individual needs. It should also have a review process to ensure the provision remains in the child’s best interests.

Background

14. Miss X’s child (Y) has complex special educational needs (SEN). Y previously attended School 1. This did not work out, and they stopped attending in 2023.
15. Section F of Y’s EHC Plan included: direct and weekly Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) support, direct fortnightly Occupational Therapy (OT), and “provision of weekly targeted 1:1 therapeutic mentor support…whilst engaging in an activity of Y’s interest…Mindjam is a good example of such a programme”.
16. In early 2024, the Council reopened a tuition referral for Y, for 15 hours a week. These were offered for a few months. Y could not engage due to high levels of anxiety. The Council also made an enquiry to a provider for a SALT and OT package for Y.

What happened – summary of key relevant events I am considering

17. In summer 2024, the Council agreed to issue Y with an amended EHC Plan after a reassessment. It confirmed tuition would continue from September until it found suitable provision for Y.
18. In September 2024, the tuition provider contacted Miss X. She said Y was not ready to engage but hoped Y would participate in the future. The tuition provider informed the Council.
19. In November 2024, Miss X forwarded the Council emails from Mindjam requesting payment. She understood the Council agreed to fund sessions for Y as they were not receiving any other provision. Y had attended since the previous month. The Council said it would get back to her.
20. In late November 2024, the Council issued an amended final EHC Plan. This said Y would attend “a maintained specialist setting”. It did not name a specific placement.
21. In December 2024, Miss X emailed the Council about tuition not working for Y. She described the struggles and barriers Y faced around suitable education for their needs, and other suggested placements. She also had no response about Mindjam payments.
22. In January 2025, Miss X sent the Council details of a play therapist to help deliver provision Y needed. It acknowledged her request.
23. In February 2025, Miss X chased the Council. She was dissatisfied as Section F provision was not in place to help Y’s regulation of emotions and communication. She repeated why tuition was not working for Y’s needs.
24. In mid-February 2025, the Council emailed Miss X with an updated final amended EHC Plan. It made a change to include, “a maintained specialist secondary setting” from September 2025.
25. In March 2025, Miss X forwarded emails to the Council from Mindjam, requesting payments for Y’s ongoing sessions.
26. In mid-April 2025, Miss X formally complained about Y’s lack of education for years. Y still had no placement and was due to move into secondary school.
27. In May 2025, Mindjam emailed Miss X about non-payments. It would have to stop sessions. Miss X contacted the Council about her dissatisfaction. The Council said it would get back to her.
28. In late May 2025, the Council sent its Stage 1 complaint response. It upheld her complaint. It had not identified a suitable school placement despite carrying out extensive consultations. It recognised tuition offered was not successful or consistent. It would explore alternative interim education options. It accepted some lack of communication and updates. Miss X escalated.
29. In July 2025, Miss X chased the Council about Mindjam. The Council met with Miss X. They discussed school placements and to follow up with her request to explore other education provision, including providers for SALT and OT.
30. In early September 2025, the Council sent a Stage 2 response. It apologised for its delayed response. It generally maintained its previous findings. It added there was no agreement the Council would fund Mindjam provision. Miss X then complained to us.
31. Between December 2024 and September 2025, the Council consulted with many schools, some more than once, with no successful offers for Y.

Analysis

School placement and alternative provision

32. During the period I am considering, I recognise the Council’s noted efforts in carrying out numerous school consultations. However, it ultimately did not fulfil its statutory duty as Y remained without a suitable school place. This is fault, causing injustice to Y.
33. I appreciate the difficulties around this but given the length of time Y had been out of school, the Council could have done more. It does not appear it scrutinised placement responses to review whether it was satisfied these met statutory tests for refusal. This is fault. I cannot say if it did, it would have changed the outcome, but this creates uncertainty for Miss X. It provided updates to Miss X where it could, but not always.
34. Alongside this, I also cannot see robust action from a Section 19 perspective. The Council relied on its offer of tuition to Y. But it knew Y could not engage due to their needs, informed by both the tuition provider and Miss X. I cannot see the Council considered any potential alternatives for education until summer 2025, very late down the line, despite Miss X’s concerns. This is fault. It did not meet its duty to provide full time (or equivalent) suitable education to Y during this time.

Section F provision and Mindjam

35. The Council also had a legal duty to provide Section F provision. The Council has not provided evidence it secured provision outlined in Paragraph 15. This is fault. This, and the above, caused significant injustice to Y as they missed out on education and most of the provision they were entitled to, for 3 school terms (during the period I am considering).
36. Miss X also went to time and trouble arranging Mindjam provision for Y from October 2024. She thought the Council agreed to fund these and forwarded invoices. I cannot see the Council responded to her, despite saying it would a few times. This led Mindjam to stop the sessions in May 2025 and left Y without any provision at all. This poor communication is fault, causing her significant frustration.
37. The Council only addressed this in its Stage 2 response to say it did not agree to pay for this. I have not seen evidence of a pre-arranged agreement. However, Y’s EHC Plan specifically said Mindjam as a good example of therapeutic support Y required. In the absence of arranging an alternative, it had a legal duty to provide (and fund) this, and I can reasonably understand Miss X’s view. This is fault. This did not cause financial injustice as Miss X did not pay for these sessions. But this caused her significant frustration as this provision stopped for Y.

Complaint handling

38. The Council’s complaints policy says it will send a Stage 1 response within 10 working days and a Stage 2 response within 20 working days. With Miss X’s complaint, it responded around a month late for Stage 1 and two months late for Stage 2. This is fault, causing Miss X avoidable frustration.

Back to top

Agreed Action

39. To remedy the injustice set out above, the Council agreed to carry out the following actions:
40. Within one month of the final decision:
• Apologise to Miss X and Y (in line with our guidance on making an effective apology) for the injustice caused by the faults identified;
• Pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £5,500 to recognise the impact to Miss X and Y with missed special educational provision and education for the period I am considering (between September 2024 and September 2025). This could be used for Y’s educational benefit; and
• Pay Miss X a symbolic payment of £100 to recognise her additional injustice with time and trouble, uncertainty and distress with the faults identified.
41. Within three months of the final decision:
• The Council should use this complaint as a case study to review the faults identified. Particularly in relation to processes around how it fulfils its alternative provision duties, how it monitors education it offers for a child, how it considers repeated unsuccessful consultation responses for a child out of school, and how it ensures it secures provision in EHC Plans.
• It should identify relevant points of learning found during this review and share with us how it will act on these to improve its services, with actions it intends to take.
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 agreed to the recommendations to remedy the injustice. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman