Summary: The Council failed to secure suitable fulltime education under s.19 Education Act 1996 and special educational provision in an Education, Health and Care Plan for a pupil prevented from attending school fulltime due to behaviour reasons. This led to loss of education provision and caused distress and inconvenience to the parent carer. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a symbolic financial payment and make service improvements.

The complaint

1. Ms X complains on her own behalf and on behalf of her child, Y. Ms X complains the Council:
• Failed to secure special educational provision in Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan between April and September 2025.
• Failed to ensure Y received suitable fulltime education between January and September 2025.
2. Ms X says due to Y being placed on a long-term part-time timetable she had to stay home and provide additional care, which affected her ability to work. Y missed out on education and social opportunities.
3. Ms X says that Y’s absence from school was not due to any physical or mental health reason, but because of behaviour consistent with Y’s special educational needs (SEN) and the lack of fulltime education was disability discrimination.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. Before considering a complaint, the Ombudsman should be satisfied the Council has had an opportunity to investigate and respond to a complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5))
6. We cannot investigate complaints about what happens in schools unless it relates to special educational needs, when the schools are acting on behalf of the council to secure educational provision as set out in Section F of the young person’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
7. 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)
8. 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.
9. 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 or when someone could take the matter to court. 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) and (c), as amended). Claims for disability discrimination can be made to the Tribunal or Court.
10. 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

11. I have investigated the Council’s actions or inaction for the period from January to September 2025.
12. I have not investigated the actions of the school. The school is not within our jurisdiction.
13. I have not investigated events after September 2025; these post-date the Council’s final complaint response and any new issues would need to be put to the Council to consider before we could do so.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

14. I considered evidence provided by Ms X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
15. Ms X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.
16. 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

Relevant law and guidance

EHC Plans

17. 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. 
18. The council has a duty to make sure the child or young person receives the special educational provision set out in section F of an EHC Plan (Section 42 Children and Families Act). The Courts have said the duty to arrange this provision is owed personally to the child and is non-delegable. This means if the council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains liable (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), (R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)  
19. We accept it is not practical for councils to keep a ‘watching brief’ on whether schools and others are providing all the special educational provision in section F for every pupil with an EHC Plan. We consider councils should be able to demonstrate appropriate oversight in gathering information to fulfil their legal duty. At a minimum we expect them to have systems in place to: 

• check the special educational provision is in place when a new or amended EHC Plan is issued or there is a change in educational placement; 
• check the provision at least annually during the EHC review process; and 
• quickly investigate and act on complaints or concerns raised that the provision is not in place at any time. 

20. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s description of a child or young person’s SEN, the special educational provision specified, the school or placement or that no school or other placement is specified in their EHC Plan.
21. We can look at matters that do not have a right of appeal, are not connected to an appeal, or are not a consequence of an appeal. For example: 

• delays in the process before an appeal right started;
• support in an EHC Plan that is not being delivered to the child or young person and we decide the cause is not connected to an appeal that has happened; and
• alternative education when the reason the child or young person is not attending education is, in our view, not connected to or is not a consequence of a matter that was part of an appeal to the Tribunal.  

Alternative (s.19) education

22. 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 makes 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.
23. 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. Councils can decide a child cannot cope with full-time provision, especially where the reason for their non-attendance is medical. When this happens, the Council should provide reasons for the amount of provision it arranges.
24. If a child has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan the council also has an ongoing duty to arrange the support guaranteed by the Plan. However, this might not always be possible, such as where the SEN support is designed for the child’s normal classroom setting.
25. We publish good practice guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to identify and arrange alternative educational provision: Supporting children out of school (October 2025)
26. Our guidance says that councils should:

• consider all the reasons for a child’s absence from school, and make a written evidence-based decision about whether it will arrange alternative education provision;
• communicate this decision as a matter of good practice to parents and where it decides not to arrange alternative education tell parents the expectations about school attendance, and the potential consequences for continued absences;
• ensure the provision meets the individual needs of the child where it decides to arrange alternative education and explain its reasons for providing a part-time education if it decides the child cannot cope with full time provision;
• keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing when the child is able;
• work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to their normal educational setting as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary; and
• ensure effective channels of communication between parents, internal teams, and external bodies (such as schools, and the NHS) so that issues are dealt with promptly by the right people, and that any complaints are identified and responded to under the relevant policy.

27. Where councils arrange for schools or other bodies to carry out their functions on their behalf, the council remains responsible. Therefore, councils should retain oversight and control to ensure their duties are properly fulfilled.
28. The Department for Education guidance (Working together to improve school attendance) states all pupils of compulsory school age are entitled to a full-time education but “in very exceptional circumstances, where it is in a pupil’s best interests, there may be a need for a school to provide a pupil of compulsory school age with less than full-time education through a temporary part-time timetable to meet their individual needs. For example, where a medical condition prevents a pupil from attending school or another setting full-time and a part-time timetable is used to help the pupil access as much education as possible. A part-time timetable should not be used to manage a pupil’s behaviour”.

Equality duties and the Human Rights Act

29. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. This includes the right to education. The Act requires all local authorities - and other bodies carrying out public functions - to respect and protect individuals’ rights.
30. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Human Rights Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them.
31. The Equality Act 2010 provides a legal framework to protect the rights of individuals and advance equality of opportunity for all. It offers protection in education and the carrying out of public functions.
32. The Equality Act makes it unlawful for organisations carrying out public functions to discriminate on any of the nine protected characteristics listed in the Equality Act 2010. They must also have regard to the general duties aimed at eliminating discrimination under the Public Sector Equality Duty. Disability is one of the protected characteristics.
33. We cannot decide if an organisation has breached the Equality Act as this can only be done by the courts. But we can make decisions about whether an organisation has properly taken account of an individual’s rights in its treatment of them. 

What happened

34. Y’s mainstream school applied for an EHC needs assessment in late 2024.
35. The school put Y on a part-time timetable in January 2025. The EHC Plan states the reason for this was that Y was struggling to cope with the social environment at school which had resulted in altercations with other students. Y had received several suspensions and was at risk of exclusion. The EHC Plan identified Y’s social, behavioural, learning and attention difficulties were consistent with his diagnosed SEN, but were not due to any emotional or mental health condition.
36. The Council says Ms X agreed the part-time timetable in January as a temporary measure as she hoped reduced time in school would aid improvement in Y’s behaviour. Ms X says the school proposed the reduced timetable as other interventions had not been successful.
37. Y was to attend school mornings only for a period of two months.
38. An application to assess Y for an EHC Plan was agreed by the Council in January 2025. The Council’s Educational Psychologist assessed Y in late March and noted Y was placed on a reduced timetable in January 2025 but had returned to a full timetable at the time of the visit. However, by the time the EHC Plan was finalised in late April, Y was back on a reduced timetable.
39. Ms X’s views for the EHC needs assessment noted Y was regularly punished through time in an isolation room (internal suspension), detention, and external suspension and none of these measures, or the reduced timetable, had improved Y’s behaviour at school. Ms X said after the two months of morning only sessions, there was one week when Y attended 2-4pm only in an isolation resource. Y was then due to do two weeks of full days at the end of March, but this was unsuccessful.
40. Following issue of the EHC Plan, the Council says it provided additional funding to the school which it was expected would assist Y’s attendance; however, Y did not return to fulltime education. Ms X says Y did not receive the special educational provision in the EHC Plan; she says no changes to the provision were made because of Y obtaining an EHC Plan.
41. The Plan refers to a range of specific interventions 1:1, 2:1 and small group and stated Y would have teaching assistant support throughout the school day. Ms X told me this support did not happen.
42. In mid to late May, the school allowed Y to attend 10.15-1.10 and 9-1.10 alternate days.
43. In June 2025, this was reduced by the school to 2-4pm twilight sessions with Y doing independent learning under supervision.
44. From late June to late July Y attended 12-1.40 daily except Fridays when Y attended 10.15-12. Y was supported 1:1 by a teaching assistant. From 1 July alternative provision two mornings per week was arranged at a sports based setting.
45. Ms X says she was often required to collect Y early, sometimes within one hour of his arrival at school. Evidence in the Council’s complaint response confirm Y was sent home for behavioural issues.
46. The Council’s complaint response noted Ms X enquired about a Pupil Referral Unit in late June. Ms X was at that time raising concerns Y was only attending school 1.5 hours per day. Ms X told me this was not evidence she agreed with the part-time timetable, she was just enquiring if a PRU might be suitable given the current support was not being successful at increasing time in school.
47. Ms X has provided me with evidence she engaged private tutors for English and Maths from January 2025.
48. Ms X appealed the final EHC Plan in June 2025, including the placement at the current school. Y however continued to attend the school during the period the appeal was awaiting determination by the Tribunal.
49. In July, following a professionals meeting which Ms X was not permitted to attend, the school and Council provided a part-time timetable for Y for September which included alternative provision at the sports setting, forest school and only three academic sessions per week to work on projects 1:1; these did not include any English or Maths teaching or any of the special educational interventions listed in the EHC Plan. Ms X says July 2025 was the first time that funding for alternative provision was agreed.
50. On receipt of the proposal the part-time timetable continue into the next school year, Ms X made a formal complaint about the education Y had missed since January 2025 and was continuing to miss.
51. The Council’s complaint response referred to alternative schools it had consulted, including schools Ms X had expressed a preference for, between April and July 2025. No alternative school place had been identified. The current school, while named on the EHC Plan, provided advice in or about June 2025 that it could not meet Y’s needs as the level of support required was not compatible with mainstream education.
52. The Council initially declined to investigate the complaint on the basis there was a live appeal about placement. Ms X said the part-time timetable and missed special educational provision were not affected by the appeal and not matters the Tribunal could decide. Ms X asked for her complaint to go to stage two.
53. The Council did investigate the matters Ms X raised at stage two, responding in October 2025, but finding no fault. It said the part-time timetable was in place before it ‘became responsible’ for Y through the issue of the EHC Plan in April and was put in place due to Y’s escalating social, emotional, and mental health (SEMH) needs and was agreed as a temporary measure to support Y’s reintegration into fulltime education.
54. The Council said the part-time timetable had been agreed with Ms X and that Ms X only withdrew consent in September 2025, and Y then started to attend fulltime.
55. Ms X disputes she agreed to the part-time timetable and only withdrew consent in September. Ms X told me it was the school that proposed and implemented the timetable. Ms X says the timetable was changed frequently, without her input or agreement, and time in school reduced, not increased.
56. The Council said after the EHC Plan was issued it provided additional funding to the school which allowed Y to be supported 1:1, facilitated specialist outreach, explored alternative provision and consulted other schools. Ms X says the extra support did not materialise until alternative provision started to be funded in July.
57. The Council has acknowledged an inevitable consequence of the part-time timetable was Y did not receive all the special educational provision in the EHC Plan, but said the part-time timetable was in Y’s best interests for Y’s well-being due to Y’s social emotional and mental health (SEMH) needs.
58. The Council acknowledged the Department for Education’s guidance, Working Together to Improve School Attendance (2024), and its own reduced hours guidance (August 2024), both emphasised that part-time timetables must be exceptional, time-limited, and part of a wider reintegration plan. It said that in Y’s case, these principles were followed.
59. In late 2025, the appeal was resolved via consent order with the Council agreeing Y move to an independent special school.

Analysis

Fault

60. I find Y was put on a part-time timetable by the school in January 2025 to manage behaviour. There was no evidence in January 2025, or subsequently, that Y had a physical or mental health condition that meant Y could not cope with fulltime education or that this was in Y’s best interests for reasons of Y’s health or wellbeing. Y was attending either school or alternative provision daily and when sent home early this was due to behaviour incidents not due to Y having any health condition.
61. The Council stated in its final complaint response the part-time timetable was justified for SEMH reasons, but this is contradicted by the EHC Plan issued in April which clearly states Y did not have SEMH difficulties. Y’s behaviour and difficulties socialising with peers was entirely consistent with Y’s identified SEN, which was a social communication condition. It was fault for the Council to justify the part-time timetable on grounds which did not apply to Y. There is no evidence of Y not attending the part-time sessions which would have been the expectation if the underlying reason was medical.
62. Government Guidance is clear that part-time timetables can only be used in exceptional circumstances and must be temporary and that they cannot be used to manage behaviour. Y should not have been put on a part-time timetable for poor behaviour. Where behaviour is a problem then schools can exclude a pupil, or direct them off-site for their learning, or the Council can provide alternative education (such as a pupil referral unit) or provide additional support in school or arrange for a move to a different school.
63. While the Council refers to Ms X agreeing to reduced attendance in the hope this would improve Y’s behaviour, Ms X disputes this, and I would not necessarily have expected Ms X to have known that Guidance states part-time timetables could not be used for behaviour.
64. Y should have received fulltime suitable education from January to September 2025 as there was no medical reason why Y could not access this. The legal duty to consider s.19 education lay with the Council. The Council knew in January 2025 that Y was on a reduced timetable, as a request for statutory assessment was made at the same time. The Council should have satisfied itself Y was receiving suitable fulltime education from this point.
65. There is no evidence the Council made a decision whether it owed Y a s.19 education duty. This is fault. I would have expected to see a written decision by the Council and provided to Ms X, with reasons, as soon as the Council became aware of Y’s absence in January 2025. If the Council did have medical evidence to support that part-time education was justified, it should have been set out at that point, so Ms X had the opportunity to challenge the Council’s view.
66. Y did return to fulltime education briefly for two weeks at the end of March, but the Council was aware this did not continue after the Easter holidays. The Council should again have considered its s.19 duty to Y and provided alternative education if the school was not willing to have Y on-site fulltime and had not made suitable alternative arrangements.
67. The Council says the part-time timetable was kept under review; however, the evidence is that Y’s time in school reduced, not increased and it was not temporary but intended to continue into a third term. In May 2025, Y was attending 4 full mornings and 1 short morning, by June this had reduced to 2 hour twilight sessions (10 hours per week) when Y worked independently (that is without any teaching taking place) under supervision.
68. Alternative sports-based provision two mornings a week at an unregistered provision did not start until July. However, the time Y attended school reduced to 8 hours 25 minutes per week and over lunchtimes. On one day there were no staff, and Y was not allowed to attend school at all.
69. The Council and school agreed a part-time timetable for September without Ms X’s input or agreement. This was fault. Even if there had been a medical reason for a part-time timetable the statutory guidance is clear that this should be agreed with parents.
70. In the event, Ms X objected to the continuation of the part-time timetable and arrangements were made so Y could attend school fulltime from September. This immediate change would add support there was never any medical reason for Y’s absence, as would the fact Y engaged with private tuition.
71. While Ms X did appeal the final EHC Plan and did ask for a different placement, I am satisfied Y’s absence from school was not a consequence of the Council’s decision that Ms X’s appealed. Y was attending the contested school throughout the period the appeal was pending, so even though Ms X disagreed with the Council’s decision to name this school, she did not block Y from attending while waiting for her appeal to be heard. Y was prevented from attending school fulltime before Ms X had an appeal right and would have been prevented from attending even if Ms X had not used her appeal right. Therefore, I am satisfied the matter is separable from the appeal and within our jurisdiction to investigate.
72. Department for Education Guidance Alternative Provision says: “the law does not define ‘full-time education’ but children should have provision, where possible, which is equivalent to the education they would receive in a mainstream (or special) school. This may not mean the same number of hours. If, for example, a child receives one-to-one tuition, the hours of face-to-face provision could be fewer as the education may be more intensive”. The education should still aim to achieve good academic attainment particularly in English and maths. Where alternative provision is used, the commissioner of the placement and the provider should ensure there is a clearly defined plan and timeline in place for when and how the child will return to full-time education.
73. While Y has been provided with some education, it is apparent this does not meet the standard of what Y would have received in a mainstream or special school classroom. On the evidence I have seen no English or maths teaching was provided to Y between January and September 2025. This was fault. Y did access private tuition funded by Ms X.
74. Y was also entitled, from April 2025, to receive the special educational provision in the EHC Plan in addition to the normal curriculum offer (s.42 Children and Families Act 20140. Y does not appear to have received any of this provision. This is fault.
75. The Council’s Equality Act and Human Rights Act duties were engaged. Y was receiving less access to education than non-disabled peers. The Council did issue an EHC Plan to aid Y’s access to education, so clearly did consider Y’s SEN and disability needs. However, the Council failed to intervene to challenge an inappropriate part-time timetable for behaviour reasons, or when the additional funding did not lead to Y’s successful reintegration into school and Y’s disadvantage continued.

Injustice

76. As a result of the above faults I have identified, Y has missed out on suitable fulltime education between January 2025 to September 2025. Ms X has had to take on additional caring responsibilities which affected her ability to work and fund private tuition. The fault has caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
77. Where we have found fault, we will recommend appropriate remedies. In assessing the remedy, we take account of any provision made or offered. Where fault has resulted in loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 to £2400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss taking into account a child’s SEN and any provision that was made.

Back to top

Agreed Action

78. Within four weeks of my final decision:
• The Council will apologise to Ms X for the fault identified in this decisions statement.
• The Council will pay Ms X £2800 to acknowledge the injustice caused by the missed provision; this figure takes into account the education that was in place at school / alternative provision.
79. Within two months of my final decision, the Council will review its policy, guidance, and staff training, alongside the statutory guidance and our guidance to ensure:
• all relevant staff are aware of the limited circumstances when part-time timetables can be used;
• EHC staff ensure that checks are made to ensure special educational provision, or as much of the provision as possible, is in place when a pupil cannot attend school;
• Ensure officers can demonstrate that s.19 decisions are being made when relevant information about pupil absence comes to light; and these decisions are recorded, with reasons, and shared with families.
80. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman