Summary: We agree with the Council’s findings of fault in the way it managed the complainant’s son’s reassessment of his Education, Health and Care Plan. This has caused a loss of education and avoidable distress and time and trouble. The Council has agreed the recommended ways to remedy this. We have therefore completed our investigation and are closing the complaint.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained that the Council failed:
1. to provide suitable alternative provision when Mrs X’s son, (Y), was not attending his school (School B) between the end of June 2024 to March 2025;
2. it delayed in meeting the required timescale after the early annual review of Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan in September 2024;
3. it delayed in finding a specialist placement for Y and wrongly told the complainant that her preferred school (School C) was not approved by the Department of Education (DfE); and
4. its communication with the complainant was poor.
2. The Council has investigated the complaints and upheld most of them. But the complainant remains dissatisfied because Y missed 7 months of education and she does not consider the Council has fully appreciated the harm caused to Y and her family by this, and the Council’s financial remedy is not in keeping with our guidance. The complainant also had to leave her previous employment to care for Y because he was without education and was at home.
3. The complainant is also concerned that the Council’s practices have not improved and previous faults are repeated.

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’.
5. 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).
6. It is our decision whether to start, and when to end an investigation into something the law allows us to investigate. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 24A(6) and 34B(8), as amended)
7. 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).
8. 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

9. I have looked at the complaint between the end of June 2024 to March 2025 when Y was placed in a specialist school. As the Council has accepted fault on most aspects of the complaint, I have looked primarily at the injustice caused to Mrs X and Y, and whether the Council’s remedy was appropriate.
10. I am not investigating Mrs X’s more recent complaints concerning events since March 2025. These are new complaints which the Council should investigate first.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

11. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and by the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance, set out below.
12. I issued a draft decision statement to Mrs X and to the Council. I have taken into account their further comments when reaching my final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Legal and administrative matters

13. A council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The annual review process is only complete when the council issues its decision to amend, maintain or discontinue the EHC Plan. This must happen within four weeks of the meeting. (Section 20(10) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.176).
14. Where a pupil is not attending a named placement, or there has been a change of circumstances, it is recommended that an early/emergency review takes place.
15. Where the council proposes to amend an EHC Plan, the law says it must send the child’s parent or the young person a copy of the existing (non-amended) Plan and an accompanying notice providing details of the proposed amendments, including copies of any evidence to support the proposed changes. (Section 22(2) Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014 and SEN Code paragraph 9.194). Case law sets out this should happen within four weeks of the date of the review meeting. Case law also found councils must issue the final amended EHC Plan within a further eight weeks.

Alternative provision

16. 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.
17. If a council discovers a child is absent from school for an extended period, it should consider the reasons for this and take account of evidence from relevant parties (such as the child’s school, parents, and medical professionals). It must then decide whether it has a duty to make alternative educational provision.
18. Councils should consider any attempts the school is making to support the child. This might involve sending work home for the child to complete, arranging disability related support, placing the child on a reduced timetable, or providing online education as a short-term measure. If there is a clear, effective, and time-bound plan for reintegration then there may be no immediate role for the council in providing alternative education.
19. The courts have considered the circumstances where the section 19 duty applies. Caselaw has established that a council will have a duty to provide alternative education under section 19 if there is no suitable education available to the child which is “reasonably practicable” for the child to access. The “acid test” is whether educational provision the council has offered is “available and accessible to the child”. (R (on the application of DS) v Wolverhampton City Council 2017)
20. 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.
21. The council has a duty to secure special educational provision specified in an EHC Plan for the child or young person. (Children and Families Act S.42)
22. 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).
23. However, this might not always be possible, such as where the special educational needs (SEN) support is designed for the child’s normal classroom setting.

The Council’s September 2023 alternative education policy

24. The current policy is under review.
25. At the time of this complaint, the Council defined alternative education as either education arranged by it, or where a pupil is directed by the school to attend off-site provision to improve behaviour. The Council will provide funding to schools if a pupil with an EHC plan requires temporary placement in alternative education.
26. Schools are required to request a review of an EHC plan and placement where a pupil is persistently absent from the named school placement.

Brief facts

27. In April 2024, the Council issued an EHC Plan, naming School B. The Council provided funding to support the placement.
28. In late June 2024, Mrs X contacted the Council to say that Y was refusing to attend school. She asked for a change of placement. In July, School B informed the Council that Y was not attending school. The Council says it tried to contact Mrs X. Mrs X says that School B told the Council that it could not meet needs although the Council has no record of this (although the complainant does).
29. Y was displaying traits of autism and high anxiety. School B agreed to arrange an early review of Y’s EHC Plan.
30. In early September 2024, the early review took place. It was agreed that School B was unable to meet Y’s needs. School B started to provide four hours tuition of English per week for Y which took place at a local library. School B did not have a Mathematics or Science tutor available for Y. He did not attend school due to his high anxiety.
31. School B sent the completed annual review paperwork to the Council in mid- October 2024, some two weeks after the statutory timescale. School B stated that it could not meet Y’s needs. Y remained on the school roll.
32. The Council says that the four hours tuition at this stage was part of School B’s reintegration package. However, by this stage, it was clear School B was saying it could not meet need. The Council says that, when a pupil with an EHC Plan is not attending the named school, the responsibility to provide alternative education remains with the school, with extra funding from the Council, if required.
33. In mid-December 2024, the Council agreed that a change of placement was necessary.
34. The Council started to consult possible alternative school placements just before Christmas 2024.
35. The Council should have issued a final amended EHC Plan by the beginning of December 2024. It issued the final EHC Plan some three months later in March 2025.
36. Mrs X complained to the Council in early December 2024 about the Council’s failure to provide suitable alternative education for Y.
37. In mid-February 2025, the Council agreed to provide 25 hours of alternative education from one of its providers. This tuition commenced in mid-March. The Council says that it can commission up to 15 hours tuition per week, and 10 hours mentoring, from one provider.
38. Mrs X requested a particular school, School C. The Council told her that it had not been approved by the DfE.
39. Y started to attend School D, a specialist smaller placement, at the end of March 2025.

The Council’s complaint investigation

40. In October 2025, we referred Mrs X’s complaint back to the Council because the Council had not dealt with her December 2024 complaint. The Council has apologised for this delay.
41. The Council investigated Mrs X’s complaint under its two stage corporate complaints process. In December 2025, it sent its final response.
42. The Council upheld Mrs X’s complaint that Y had not received a suitable alternative education since early December 2024, when the Council agreed to ensure Y received a suitable level of education and support.
43. It also upheld the complaint that the Council misinformed Mrs X that her preferred school placement (School C) was not approved by the DfE, that there had been a delay in issuing the final amended EHC Plan, and it partly upheld the complaint about poor communication.
44. In conclusion, the Council said that it had failed to secure suitable education for Y between June 2024 to mid-February 2025 and that this was a breach of its duty to provide the provision required in Y’s EHC Plan. (This contradicted its earlier statement that it had failed to provide alternative education between December 2024 to February 2025).
45. The Council apologised for its faults, recognising that they caused avoidable distress and missed education for Y. It offered a symbolic payment of £900 for what it considered was thirteen weeks of missed education for Y.
46. Mrs X considered this was inadequate because Y missed some seven months of suitable education.
47. In terms of service improvements, the Council told Mrs X that it had:

• issued a communication charter whereby special educational needs coordinators would respond to correspondence within three working days;
• arrangements were in place to chase up any delay in the Council receiving the annual review paperwork; and
• the Council had termly meetings with schools to improve practice and communication for pupils with EHC plans.

48. I am also aware from other complaints that the Council has taken note of our focus report on pupils out of school, and the Director of Education reviews monthly complaints and compliments. Staff have also been reminded that, at annual reviews, they should check that the special educational provision is in place.

Findings

49. The Council has carried out a detailed stage two investigation into Mrs X’s complaints. It is not for the Ombudsman to unpick what the Council has found unless we considered the investigation was inadequate, which I do not.
50. However, there is some confusion about the length of time Y was without suitable alternative education. My view is that, in July 2024, the Council made enquiries of School B and advised it to hold an early review. This took place in early-September 2024. Up to this point, I find no fault by the Council.
51. Between September and mid-October 2024, School B was arranging the alternative education for Y while the Council awaited the annual review paperwork. This is in accordance with the Council’s policy at that time. While it is right that the Council should have been able to rely on School B to ensure any alternative provision was suitable, the Council still retained a responsibility to have some oversight of this provision. Four hours tuition per week, just in English, was very little for a pupil in Y’s year group.
52. So, I consider it is fault that the Council did not exercise its oversight role to ensure School B’s alternative education was suitable.
53. The annual review paperwork was received just before the October 2024 half term. At this point, it became clear to the Council and was confirmed in writing that School B was unable to meet Y’s needs.
54. I consider that between November 2024 to mid-March 2025, the Council should have arranged alternative education for Y because it was clear that School B was not an available and accessible school placement for him.
55. On all other aspects of Mrs X’s complaint, I agree with the findings made in the Council’s stage two letter of December 2025, primarily there was a delay in issuing the final amended EHC Plan, the Council wrongly told her School C was not approved by the DfE, and its communication with her was poor.
56. However, I would add that the Council also delayed in dealing with Mrs X’s complaints which she made in December 2024. It was a year later that she received a final response. That too I find, is fault, adding to Mrs X’s frustration and loss of trust in the Council.
57. The remaining issue is the resulting injustice and remedy. Mrs X says that Y became isolated and distressed, he has been caused detriment by the loss of education, and she had to leave her employment to care for Y at home.
58. Our guidance on remedies recommends between £900 to £2,400 per term of lost education.
59. We do not normally recommend a time and trouble payment just for having to complain to a council or to us. But we recognise that mistakes in a council’s complaints process can cause avoidable time and trouble and we may recommend a small symbolic payment for this.
60. Within one month of the final statement, the Council will:
1. apologise to Mrs X for the faults and injustice which I have identified. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The organisation should consider this guidance in making the apology I have recommended in my findings;
2. make a symbolic payment of £500 to Mrs X for the avoidable distress, and for the delay in dealing with her complaint;
3. make a symbolic payment of £500 for the Council’s lack of oversight of the alternative education between September and October 2024; and
4. make a symbolic payment of £2,400 to Mrs X for the loss of alternative education for Y.
61. I am not making any service improvement recommendations because these have been made in previous complaints.

Back to top

Action

62. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

I find fault causing injustice. I have recommended a way to remedy this, which the Council has agreed to. Therefore, I have completed my investigation and am closing the complaint.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman