Summary: The Council was at fault because it did not make arrangements for a child to receive education during a period he was not at school. Although the Council has recognised this and offered a remedy, it has now agreed to increase its offer in line with the Ombudsman’s published guidance.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Miss G.
2. Miss G complains the Council did not ensure her son, D, received education during a period he was not attending school. As a result, she says he fell behind academically, has been unable to attend his chosen college, and has experienced poor mental health.
3. Miss G also complains the Council did not issue D’s amended education, health and care (EHC) plan in time, following an annual review, and that it has refused to reimburse her for solicitor’s fees she incurred in pursuing her complaint.

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)

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

5. I have investigated the element of Miss G’s complaint set out at paragraph 2.
6. I have not investigated the elements set out at paragraph 3. This is because the law says a person should approach us within 12 month of becoming aware of the matter they wish to complaint about. A complaint made after this time is late, and we will normally not accept it for investigation.
7. After an annual review of D’s EHC plan in March 2024, the Council had until July 2024 to issue an amended version, a deadline it missed. But Miss G did not complain to us about this until August 2025, more than 12 months later, and it is therefore late.
8. The law permits us to apply some flexibility to this restriction, and so we can disapply it where we see fit. To do so though, we must first be satisfied there is a good reason for the complainant’s delay in approaching us. There is no evidence to show that is the case here though, and I note, in particular, Miss G has made two previous complaints to us in recent years. I will therefore not exercise discretion to investigate this element of her complaint.
9. Miss G’s complaint about solicitor’s fees falls into the same restriction, as she incurred them some time before August 2024. However, we have actually already investigated – and not upheld – this element of her complaint in a previous investigation. We do not reinvestigate matters we have already considered and decided, and therefore, even if this element of Miss G’s complaint was in time, I could not include it in my investigation.
10. I will add that we generally do not recommend the reimbursement of solicitors’ fees anyway, as we do not consider it necessary for a person to use a solicitor to access the complaints process (which was the reason we did not uphold this element of the complaint in our previous investigation).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Miss G and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
12. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

13. D is subject to an EHC plan. At the end of the 2023/24 academic year he was receiving a package of tutoring, but at the resumption of the academic year in September 2024, the tutoring agency ended this placement after a single one-hour session.
14. The Council says it began to look for a replacement provider for the remainder of the year, and received an expression of interest from a particular agency. In November, it commissioned this agency to provide D with four hours of tutoring per week.
15. The Council says the agency subsequently sent emails to explain it could not continue the package, but due to a change in personnel, the Council did not see these emails until sometime later. The Council has not explained when this happened.
16. Miss G says this package of education never started, and the only education D had during the whole 2024/25 academic year was the single session in September.
17. In July 2025 Miss G submitted a complaint to the Council. Miss G’s complaint includes information about a range of issues, most of which do not form part of my investigation. For the sake of brevity I will describe only the elements of Miss G’s complaint which are relevant here.
18. Miss G explained D had had no education since September, that he wished to start attending a particular college in September, but that he had been left at a disadvantage compared to his peers because he lacked qualifications. Miss G said she had been insulted to be informed by the Council that D would be unable to enrol at the college, because he needed three GSCE qualifications, which he did not have, and that the Council had suggested he look elsewhere or repeat a year of education.
19. Miss G said D had suffered a deterioration in his mental health because of his absence from school, and that he had been arrested twice during time he should have been at school. She said his absence of education had been because of Council failings, and that he had a right to attend the college of his choice.
20. In response, the Council acknowledged the problems D had experienced, but said it had already admitted fault and apologised for this in response to the Ombudsman’s previous decision. The Council also acknowledged it had told Miss G that D could not enrol at the college because he did not have the right qualifications, and said it was currently exploring other options for him, but noted there were also safeguarding concerns about D relating to the area the college was in.
21. The Council reiterated it had already accepted fault and apologised for D’s loss of education, but offered to pay Miss G £1500 for each of the Autumn and Spring Terms of the 2024/25 academic year, and £2400 for the Summer Term, to reflect the impact of this.
22. Miss G replied to the Council’s letter. She said the Ombudsman’s previous investigation covered an earlier period of missed education, and not the period she was now complaining about. In response to the Council’s comments about safeguarding, Miss G said D had not been subject to criminal charges, and said it was not acceptable for the Council to “criminalise” D or suggest this was a reason he could not attend his preferred college.
23. Miss G said the tuition package commissioned by the Council in November 2024 had not actually taken place. She did not accept the Council’s offer of a £5400 remedy.
24. After receiving a further response from the Council restating its position, Miss G referred her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Analysis

25. Our guidance on remedies says, depending on the individual circumstances of the case, we will normally recommend a payment of between £900 and £2400 per term, to reflect a loss of education arising from council fault.
26. I asked the Council to explain its rationale for offering Miss G £1500 for two terms, and £2400 for one. In response, the Council repeated its comments from its response to Miss G’s complaint. From this, I infer the Council considers it appropriate to offer a lower figure for the first two terms, because of the arrangements it made to provide D with education for part of this time.
27. However, Miss G has stated, several times, that the package the Council says it commissioned in November 2024 did not actually take place. The Council has not, that I have seen, actually addressed this comment at any point in its correspondence; nor has it provided any evidence to counter Miss G’s claim.
28. On the balance of probabilities, therefore, I must accept Miss G’s version of events here. It follows, therefore, there is no reason for the Council to offer a reduced remedy for the first two terms of the year, if it considers it appropriate to offer the maximum for the final term.
29. I note Miss G also says the loss of education suffered by D has directly affected his ability to attend his college of choice, for which she blames the Council. While, clearly, an absence of educational provision is relevant to this, there are other variable factors which might also affect whether a particular college offers D a place. I cannot draw a direct causal link between the Council’s fault, and this alleged injustice.

Back to top

Action

30. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council should offer to pay Miss G a total of £7200 – consisting of £2400 for each of three terms – to reflect the loss of education D experienced during the 2024/25 academic year.
31. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

32. I find fault causing injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman