Summary: We have discontinued our investigation of this complaint, about a failure by the Council to secure educational provision for a child. This is because the Council has already offered a suitable remedy, and further investigation by us will not add anything.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Mrs D.
2. Mrs D complains the Council did not make arrangements for her son, P, to receive education when he stopped attending school. She said this caused a significant negative impact on his mental health.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered evidence provided by Mrs D and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
5. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

6. Mrs D and P moved into the Council’s area in 2024. P had an existing education, health and care (EHC) plan, and was on roll at a specialist school, but Mrs D says he had not actually been attending the school.
7. In November, during an annual review of P’s EHC plan, the school confirmed it could not meet his needs. In December, it made a formal decision to remove him from the school roll.
8. In April 2025 Mrs D made a complaint to the Council. She said P had had no education since becoming the Council’s responsibility. She noted the school had decided it could not meet his needs, and said the Council had informed her there was a deadline of 15 days for it to find alternative provision for him. However, since then, she had received no further contact from the Council, leaving P without education.
9. The Council responded in May. It said it had been notified of the family’s move to its area in October 2024, and noted, at the time, P was “attending” the special school. However, it acknowledged Mrs D had said the school confirmed it could not meet P’s needs in November, and that the school had then formally ended his placement in December. The Council also noted the school had confirmed P had not accessed any on-site provision there since January 2024.
10. The Council explained it had agreed, in December 2024, to arrange an ‘education other than at school’ (EOTAS) package for P, but acknowledged it may not have informed Mrs D of this. The Council apologised for its lack of communication and poor service delivery and upheld Mrs D’s complaint. It said it would now start to look for alternative provision for P and explained this process.
11. The Council also said, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, it would offer Mrs D £3000 to reflect the loss of education P had experienced, and a further £300 to recognise Mrs D’s distress.
12. Mrs D replied a few days later. She said she did not wish to accept the Council’s offer yet, as the substantive matter of P’s education remained unresolved. She also said the Council’s offer of £300 was inadequate to recognise the distress the family had experienced.
13. In September Mrs D referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. In doing so, she said the Council still had not secured an educational placement for P.

Back to top

Analysis

14. The law says a council must arrange alternative provision for any child of compulsory school age, who is unable to attend school for one of several qualifying reasons, including illness.
15. The Council has upheld Mrs D’s complaint on the basis it failed to do this. I will note that Mrs D’s comment, that there is a 15-day deadline to discharge this duty, is incorrect – the duty applies once a child has reached a threshold of 15 days absence from school, but there is no legal deadline for a council to then actually secure a placement.
16. Either way, I agree the Council should have started to act with urgency to find a new placement in December 2024, at the latest, once it became aware of the school’s intention to remove P from its roll. The evidence implies the Council did nothing further after this though.
17. Our guidance on remedies says we will recommend a council offer to pay between £900 and £2400 per term, where a child has missed education as a result of its fault. In this case, at the point of its complaint response, P had missed just over a term since he became the Council’s responsibility, and so I consider the Council’s offer of £3000 to be appropriate.
18. I will add that this remedy is intended also to reflect the wider impact of such a loss, such as distress or inconvenience to family members. We would not, therefore, normally recommend an additional payment for distress, as the Council has done here.
19. Taking these points together, I am satisfied the Council has appropriately responded to Mrs D’s complaint. Further investigation by us will not add to this.
20. I am conscious Mrs D says the Council’s failure to arrange education for P continued after its response to her complaint. However, we can only investigate events up to the point where Mrs D made her complaint, and so I cannot consider any ongoing alleged fault here. Mrs D must make a new complaint to address any more recent events.

Back to top

Decision

21. I have discontinued my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman