Summary: The Council failed to ensure Mrs X was involved in the decision to introduce a part-time timetable for her son, failed to ensure that part-time timetable was kept under review and the impact on Mrs X’s son considered, failed to ensure Mrs X’s son received all the provision in his education, health and care plan and failed to ensure her son received full-time education. That caused Mrs X distress and uncertainty and meant her son missed out on provision. The remedy the Council has offered its satisfactory.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complained the Council:
• failed to involve her in the decision to introduce a part-time timetable;
• failed to ensure the school kept the part-time timetable under review;
• failed to act when she raised concerns about the impact on her son;
• failed to ensure the school completed a risk assessment as it had asked it to do;
• failed to ensure her son received the provision in his education, health and care plan (EHC Plan) before he was excluded from school; and
• failed to ensure her son received full-time education.
2. Mrs X says the Council’s actions had a significant impact on her son’s mental health, led to him missing out on special educational needs provision and education and impacted her own health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
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 an injustice, we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

7. I have not investigated Mrs X’s concerns about the school’s decision to permanently exclude her son. That is because the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction over the actions of a school. Because of that the Ombudsman also does not have jurisdiction to consider the Council’s involvement in the review of that decision.
8. Nor have I investigated Mrs X’s concerns about the Council naming an unsuitable school in her son’s EHC Plan or about the provision in that plan. That is because Mrs X had, and exercised, her right of appeal about that.

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.
12. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an 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.
13. 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 this duty to arrange provision is owed personally to the child and is non delegable. This means if a council asks another organisation to make the provision and that organisation fails to do so, the council remains responsible. (R v London Borough of Harrow ex parte M [1997] ELR 62), R v North Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 135)

Government guidance - Working together to improve school attendance

14. For part-time timetables it says 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. A part-time timetable should not be used to manage a pupil's behaviour.
15. A part-time timetable should:
• Have the agreement of both the school and the parent the pupil normally lives with.
• Have a clear ambition and be part of the pupil's wider support, health care or reintegration plan.
• Have regular review dates which include the pupil and their parents to ensure it is only in place for the shortest time necessary.
• Have a proposed end date that takes into account the circumstances of the pupil, after which the pupil is expected to attend full-time, either at school or alternative provision. It can, however, be extended as part of the regular review process. In some limited cases, a pupil with a long-term health condition may require a part time timetable for a prolonged period.
16. If the pupil has an EHC Plan, the school should discuss the part-time timetable with the local authority so any support package in place can be reviewed as swiftly as possible.

What happened

17. Mrs X’s son has special educational needs and was attending an Academy school, school A. The Council completed an EHC needs assessment and issued a final EHC Plan on 6 January 2025. That EHC Plan named School A. The Council issued a further final EHC Plan following mediation on 25 February. That again named school A. Mrs X appealed about what the EHC Plan said about her son's special educational needs (section B), what the EHC Plan said about the provision (section F) and the school named in section I.
18. After a professionals meeting school A placed Mrs X’s son on a part-time timetable. That took place one-to-one in a small garden provision.
19. Mrs X met with Council officers to raise concerns about the part-time timetable and small garden provision on 1 April. Following that the Council emailed school A to tell it Mrs X did not agree to the reduced timetable or the small garden provision. The Council suggested alternative provision to support Mrs X’s son to have a full-time timetable.
20. The Council wrote to Mrs X on 7 April to tell her the school would look for alternative provision for her son to access full-time education after Easter.
21. Mrs X contacted the Council to raise concerns about the impact the provision was having on her son on 23 April and complained to the Council on 27 April. Mrs X complained about the lack of specialist special educational needs support which meant her son’s needs were not being met, using a part-time timetable to manage his behaviour rather than addressing the underlying issues associated with his special educational needs and inconsistent one-to-one teaching assistant provision. Mrs X said she believed the provision would increase the risk of suspension and exclusion.
22. Mrs X contacted the Council again on 29 April to raise concerns about the negative impact the provision was having on her son’s emotional well-being, behaviour and education. Mrs X said the provision was isolating her son and that her son’s behaviour was due to unmet needs rather than a disciplinary issue. Mrs X asked for immediate action to review his provision, to provide adequate access to the curriculum, to develop a clear and structured plan to support his emotional and sensory needs, to complete a risk assessment and to engage in ongoing meaningful conversation with herself.
23. Mrs X contacted the Council again on 21 May to make clear she did not consent to her son remaining in the small garden provision and again emphasised the impact it was having on him.
24. The Council responded to Mrs X’s complaint on 30 May. The Council explained why professionals had agreed for the small garden provision and a part-time timetable. The Council told Mrs X school A would supplement the provision with alternative mentoring and tuition options. The Council accepted though the part-time timetable had been implemented without Mrs X’s consent. The Council said it had asked the school to complete a comprehensive risk assessment which would include the potential impact of isolation. The Council said it:
• intended to issue a reminder to all schools reminding them of their legal obligations around part-time timetables and particularly the requirement for informed parental consent, time-limited use and appropriate justification;
• reviewed its internal monitoring processes to ensure tracking, review and escalation where necessary for the use of reduced timetables;
• would encourage schools to consider inclusive alternatives before implementing reduced timetables; and
• would continue to promote meaningful engagement with families in all decisions affecting a child's education.
25. Following that complaint response Mrs X raised further concerns. In particular, Mrs X noted the Council had not involved all the relevant professionals in the decision to introduce a part-time timetable and small garden provision. Mrs X later also raised concerns as she had found out the school was not ensuring her son received his speech and language therapy, as well as other special educational needs provision.
26. The Council contacted the speech and language therapist to confirm the provision in place. The speech and language therapist explained it had previously delivered speech and language therapy in school. However, because Mrs X’s son was not now attending school full-time it intended to begin speech and language therapy in a clinic.
27. The Council wrote to Mrs X again on 6 June to explain what the speech and language therapist said. The Council explained why school A had continued with provision of education outside the main classroom and that her son now attended full-time which is why the alternative provision had not begun.
28. Mrs X asked the Council to take the complaint to the next stage.
29. School A permanently excluded Mrs X’s son on 6 June. An independent review panel later quashed that decision but Mrs X’s son did not return to school A.
30. On 20 June school A sent the Council a copy of the risk assessment it had completed in March 2025 and updated in April 2025.
31. The Council began providing 14 hours per week interim provision for Mrs X’s son pending it identifying the new school placement.
32. The Council held an annual review for the EHC Plan on 30 June and told Mrs X it intended to amend the EHC Plan. The Council also identified a placement at a new school, school B.
33. The Council issued a further complaint response in August 2025. The Council accepted it did not have any evidence school A reviewed the part-time timetable and again accepted Mrs X had not been involved in the decision. The Council told Mrs X it did not have evidence school A had completed a risk assessment. The Council acknowledged the small garden provision, intended to reduce the risk of exclusion, resulted in removal of her son from his peer group which may have contributed to his feelings of isolation and distress. The Council also accepted implementation of daily speech therapy, sensory breaks and emotional literacy had been inconsistent, particularly in relation to staff training and communication strategies.
34. The Council acknowledged those gaps may have resulted in school A perceiving Mrs X’s son as defiant or non-compliant when he was struggling to access the environment due to unmet needs. The Council recognised the standard behaviour policies may not have been sufficiently adapted to her son's needs. As well as offering Mrs X a financial remedy the Council identified the following steps it had taken:
• to launch a parent partnership charter;
• introduced a formal process to acknowledge and respond to parent led support offers;
• embedded coproduction in all EHC Plan reviews and exclusion decisions;
• agreed to review and monitor part-time timetables for legality and impact;
• to ensure behaviour policies reflect neuro diversity and sensory needs;
• arranged staff training in therapeutic and inclusive approaches;
• developed SEND dashboards to track EHC Plan delivery and outcomes;
• strengthened oversight via the SEND improvement board.
35. In response to that letter Mrs X provided further medical information to the Council and explained why she was unhappy with the outcome.
36. The Council wrote to Mrs X about her complaint on 3 September. The Council explained its view that at the time school A introduced the part time timetable it did not have any information to suggest the small garden provision would become isolating or contribute to harm to Mrs X’s son. The Council reiterated its previous findings and accepted the provision in place did not consistently reflect the expectations in the EHC Plan. The Council offered:
• £1,600 for missed education due to the reduced timetable and exclusion;
• £200 for failing to retain oversight of reviewing the reduced timetable;
• £400 for distress and time and trouble;
• £750 for the emotional impact.
37. Mrs X son was enrolled at school B on 4 September. The Council issued a final EHC Plan naming school B on 22 September.

Analysis

38. Mrs X says the Council failed to involve her in the decision to introduce a part-time timetable for her son or to ensure school A kept the part-time timetable under review. The Council accepts it failed to ensure Mrs X was involved in the decision to introduce a part-time timetable. Government guidance, which I refer to in paragraph 15, is clear parents should be involved in the decision to introduce a part-time timetable. Failure to do that in this case is fault. I have also seen no evidence the part-time timetable was reviewed or monitored. That is also fault.
39. Mrs X says the Council failed to act when school A placed her son in a small garden provision. Mrs X says that provision did not meet her son’s sensory and emotional needs and isolated him. Mrs X says that had a significant impact on his behaviour outside of school as he masked during the school day.
40. The evidence I have seen satisfies me Mrs X repeatedly raised concerns about the impact both the part-time timetable and small garden provision were having on her son. I cannot say the Council did not take any action because it asked school A to complete a risk assessment and to arrange alternative provision. Although Mrs X says school A did not complete a risk assessment I am satisfied it did because there is one on file from March 2025, updated in April 2025. I understand why Mrs X would believe school A had not completed the risk assessment though given this is what the Council said in its August 2025 complaint response.
41. However, the risk assessment is fairly limited and does not assess the impact on Mrs X’s son of separating him into the small garden provision. Nor is there any evidence the school sent that risk assessment to the Council until after it had excluded Mrs X’s son. The Council accepts it failed to properly quality assure that risk assessment or ensure it was monitored. That is fault.
42. I am particularly concerned the Council did not engage with the concerns Mrs X raised about the suitability of the part-time timetable and the impact the small garden provision was having on her son. Other than the risk assessment which, as I have said, did not address the impact on Mrs X’s son, there is no evidence of the Council taking any further action. Failure to do that is fault.
43. Mrs X says the Council failed to ensure her son received his special educational needs provision before he was excluded from school. The Council accepts it does not have evidence school A put in place all the provision in Mrs X's son's EHC Plan. That included:
• speech and language therapy;
• a trained, consistent adult;
• specialist teaching input with weekly monitoring and professional oversight;
• therapeutic support with structured self-regulation opportunities;
• staff trained in trauma informed approaches and special educational needs;
• gradual transitions with visual timetables and consistent key workers; and
• inclusive practice adapting the environment.
44. I am therefore satisfied Mrs X's son missed out on special educational needs provision between March 2025 and when school A excluded him in June 2025.
45. I appreciate school A had the responsibility on a daily basis to meet the provision in Mrs X's son's EHC Plan. However, the Council retains overall responsibility. Failure to ensure the provision in Mrs X's sons EHC Plan was in place between March and June 2025 is therefore fault. I am satisfied that meant Mrs X's son missed out on special educational needs provision which included 13 speech and language therapy sessions.
46. Mrs X says the Council failed to act when it knew her son was not receiving full-time education. As I said earlier, I am satisfied the Council was involved in the decision to introduce a part-time timetable but that decision was not reached properly because Mrs X was not involved. I am also concerned to note although the Council told Mrs X school A would consider putting in place alternative provision to increase the education available to her son after the Easter holidays I have seen no evidence that happened. That is fault.
47. I do not consider it likely Mrs X’s son could not have accessed full-time education, albeit some of that provision may have been outside school. I therefore consider Mrs X’s son missed out on full-time education and special educational needs provision between March 2025 when the part-time timetable was introduced and June 2025 when he was excluded. I am also satisfied there was a delay in the Council putting in place alternative provision in June 2025. The Council should have put provision in place from the sixth day following the exclusion and failed to do that. That is fault.
48. I appreciate Mrs X says her son only received 14 hours education from 26 June. However, I am satisfied the education in place at that point was one-to-one. As one-to-one provision is more intensive I would not expect the Council to put in place the same number of hours as Mrs X’s son would have received in school. On that basis 14 hours is a significant provision. I cannot comment on any lack of education after September 2025 though as the Council issued an EHC Plan naming school B and Mrs X had a right of appeal.
49. Mrs X says if the Council had acted properly her son would have received the support he needed and would not have been excluded. I understand why Mrs X would take that view. However, I cannot speculate about whether Mrs X’s son would have remained in school and avoided exclusion if the Council had acted as it should have done. I consider though Mrs X is left with some uncertainty about whether the outcome would have been different. It is also clear Mrs X experienced significant distress, it had an impact on her health and her son missed out on special educational needs provision and full-time education.
50. I have taken into account the period over which Mrs X’s son missed out on special educational needs provision and education and the provision that was in place. I consider the £1,600 the Council has offered for that a suitable remedy as it is in line with what the Ombudsman would normally recommend. The Council has offered a further £1,350 to reflect a mixture of distress, emotional impact and time and trouble. That likely exceeds the amount the Ombudsman would recommend for distress and uncertainty. I therefore consider the financial remedy the Council has offered sufficient and I invite the Council to make the offer to Mrs X again. I make no further recommendation for a procedural remedy as I am satisfied the action the Council has taken, which I outlined in paragraphs 24 and 34, is sufficient.

Back to top

Final decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman