Summary: Miss X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provision set out in Section F of her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care Plan or provide a suitable alternative educational placement. We found the Council at fault for failing to maintain oversight of Y’s reduced timetable, failing to ensure and evidence delivery of all Section F provision, and delay in consulting alternative placements once it became clear attendance would not increase as planned. These failings led to missed education and special educational provision, uncertainty about Y’s long-term schooling, and distress. The Council has agreed to apologise, make a payment to Miss X, and share an update on finding a suitable placement.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to secure the special educational provision specified in Section F of her child, Y’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She also complained the Council failed to identify and secure a suitable alternative educational placement, which caused Y to miss education and caused significant distress to both Y and the wider family.
2. In addition, Miss X complained the Council failed to amend Y’s EHC Plan despite it containing inaccurate information about their special educational needs.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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)
4. Service failure can happen when an organisation fails to provide a service as it should have done because of circumstances outside its control. We do not need to show any blame, intent, flawed policy or process, or bad faith by an organisation to say service failure (fault) has occurred. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1), as amended)
5. When considering complaints we make findings based on the balance of probabilities. This means that we look at the available relevant evidence and decide what was more likely to have happened.
6. 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)
7. 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

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 SEND Tribunal in this decision.  
9. Miss X can appeal to the SEND Tribunal regarding her complaint the Council failed to amend inaccuracies in her child’s EHC Plan. I consider it is reasonable for her to have done so. I have therefore not investigated this part of her complaint.
10. 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. Accordingly, I have investigated Miss X’s complaint the Council failed to secure the special educational provision specified in Y’s EHC Plan and failed to arrange suitable alternative education.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

What I found

Relevant legislation

EHC Plan 

13. 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. 

Content of an EHC Plan

14. The EHC Plan is set out in sections which include: 

• Section B: Special educational needs.  
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person. 
• Section I: The name and/or type of educational placement 

Appeal rights

15. 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 and amendment to these elements of an EHC Plan.

Maintaining the EHC Plan

16. 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)  

Reviewing EHC Plans

17. The council must arrange for the EHC Plan to be reviewed at least once a year to make sure it is up to date. The council must complete the review within 12 months of the first EHC Plan and within 12 months of any later reviews. The annual review begins with consulting the child’s parents or the young person and the educational placement. A review meeting must then take place. Following the review meeting the council must issue a decision to either amend, maintain or cease to maintain 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) 

Section 19 duty

18. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that the council 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.

Establishing a section 19 duty

19. 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.
20. 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.

Arranging person centred provision

21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Councils should also think about the steps needed to reintegrate the child back into their usual school setting, through ongoing conversations with relevant professionals and the parents.

Part-time timetables

24. The DfE guidance (Working together to improve school attendance) states all pupils of compulsory school age are entitled to a full-time education. In very exceptional circumstances there may be a need for a temporary part-time timetable to meet a pupil’s individual needs. For example where a medical condition prevents a pupil from attending full-time education and a part-time timetable is considered as part of a re-integration package. A part-time timetable must not be treated as a long-term solution. 

What happened

25. Y has significant special educational needs and has held an EHC Plan for several years. Y attends a special school, which includes a weekly residential stay.
26. In early March 2024, following an increase in Y’s behavioural difficulties, the school implemented a reduced timetable, significantly reducing the amount of time Y attended school. The arrangement was reviewed weekly and formed part of a reintegration plan intended to support Y’s participation in a residential trip in May, and a subsequent return to full-time attendance.
27. During Y’s annual review, the school advised the Council that it could no longer meet Y’s needs. The Council subsequently began consulting alternative specialist placements. In late March, it issued a final amended EHC Plan which stated that Y’s educational placement from September 2024 was yet to be confirmed.
28. In late May, a serious incident took place whilst Y was participating in the residential trip. Following this, the school advised the Council it was considering permanently excluding Y.
29. In June, it was agreed that Y would remain on roll at the school and initially attend one day per week, pending a review of their medication. The Council also agreed to arrange alternative provision alongside Y’s school attendance and began consulting potential providers.
30. Following this, Y turned 16 years old and was no longer of compulsory school age.
31. In July, the Council approved funding for alternative provision.
32. In August, the Council approved interim funding for additional two-to-one support to enable Y to attend school safely and support reintegration. The funding was agreed on the basis that Y’s attendance would increase to three days per week.
33. In September, Y continued to attend school one day per week and six hours of alternative provision each week commenced through Provider A.
34. In October, a further six hours of alternative provision was agreed. Provider B was identified and began supporting Y in December 2024.
35. In January 2025, the Council paused provision for all young people accessing Provider B while compliance checks were undertaken. Provision resumed for Y approximately five weeks later.
36. In February, the Council sought an update from the school regarding plans to increase Y’s attendance to three days per week. It then became apparent the Council and school held different understandings of the arrangements. While the Council understood attendance would increase, the school maintained that Y would continue attending one day per week together with their weekly residential stay.
37. In April, Provider B again paused provision due to staffing difficulties. Provision resumed approximately six weeks later after replacement staff had been recruited.
38. In June, Miss X complained to the Council that it had failed to secure the provision specified in Section F of Y’s EHC Plan and that interruptions in alternative provision had resulted in missed education and significant distress.
39. Between June and July 2025, the Council consulted nine settings. Those that responded advised they were either unable to meet Y’s needs or that a placement would be incompatible with the needs of existing pupils.
40. In July, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It acknowledged that plans to increase Y’s attendance at school had not happened. It confirmed alternative provision had been arranged but accepted there had been periods when provision was unavailable. The Council said it had continued to explore alternative placements and additional support but accepted it had not ensured all of the provision specified in Section F of Y’s EHC Plan had been delivered.
41. By the end of July, most consultation responses had been received, with schools advising they were unable to meet Y’s needs. Two settings did not respond.
42. Miss X escalated her complaint and sought clarification about the Council’s plans going forward.
43. Later that month, the Council issued a further final amended EHC Plan naming Y’s current school.
44. In August, the Council responded to Miss X’s escalated complaint. It said it considered the combination of 12 hours of alternative provision each week and Y’s attendance at school to be a suitable full-time package of education given Y’s age and circumstances. The Council confirmed it remained committed to identifying a suitable educational placement and securing a school to be named in Y’s EHC Plan. It also offered Miss X £900 in recognition of the educational provision Y had missed during the summer term of 2024.
45. Following this, Miss X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman.
46. Since then, the Council has reassessed Y’s needs, obtained updated educational psychology and medical advice, undertaken further consultations with specialist settings and issued a further EHC Plan in December 2025 naming Y’s current school. None of the consulted settings were able to meet Y’s needs.
47. In response to my enquiries. the Council acknowledged it is unclear whether some speech and language linked provision was delivered while Y was attending school on a reduced timetable. It also accepted that, because Y attended school for only one day each week, some elements of Section F were not fully delivered, although it considers the majority of Y’s special educational needs were met through a combination of school-based support and alternative provision.

My findings

Alternative provision and special educational provision June – September 2024

48. By June 2024, it was apparent that the existing reintegration plan could no longer be achieved. The Council promptly considered whether it owed Y a duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 and decided that it did. It therefore agreed to arrange alternative provision alongside Y’s attendance at school. I find no fault in the Council’s decision-making at this stage.
49. Shortly afterwards, while the Council was identifying suitable alternative provision, Y reached the age of 16 and ceased to be of compulsory school age. As a result, the Council’s section 19 duty no longer applied. However, the Council remained under a duty to secure the special educational provision specified in Section F of Y’s EHC Plan. Although alternative provision was subsequently arranged and commenced in September 2024, the Council has accepted there were gaps in the educational and special educational provision available to Y between June and September 2024.
50. The Council has already acknowledged these shortcomings and offered Miss X £900 to recognise the loss of educational and special educational provision during this period. Having considered the circumstances of the case, I am satisfied this is an appropriate remedy.

Special educational provision September 2024 – September 2025.

51. Between September 2024 and September 2025, Y attended school one day per week, received support from Provider A and later received additional support from Provider B, subject to two periods when that provision was unavailable.
52. The evidence shows the Council secured the majority of Y’s special educational provision through a combination of support provided by the school and alternative providers. However, the Council has acknowledged that some elements of Section F were not delivered and that, in relation to other elements, it cannot demonstrate whether provision was provided. This amounts to fault. As a result, Y missed some of the special educational provision specified in their EHC Plan between September 2024 and September 2025.
53. While this fault persisted over a significant period, the evidence indicates the majority of Y’s assessed needs were met through the support available. The missing provision was limited in scope when considered in the context of Y’s overall package of educational and special educational support. In the circumstances, I consider a remedy of £100 per school term, totalling £300, to be appropriate.

School placement

54. The Council approved funding in August 2024 to facilitate Y’s attendance at school for up to three days each week with additional two-to-one support. Despite this, Y continued to attend school for only one day per week. The Council did not maintain adequate oversight of the arrangements it had funded and expected to result in increased attendance. It failed to appropriately review the reduced timetable and did not identify until February 2025 that the anticipated increase in attendance had not occurred. This was fault.
55. This represented a missed opportunity for the Council either to work with the school to increase Y’s attendance or to establish at an earlier stage that this was unlikely to happen and consider alternative arrangements. Having become aware that Y’s attendance would not increase as expected, the Council did not begin consulting alternative school placements until June 2025. This delay in pursuing a longer-term educational solution was fault. I cannot say, on the balance of probabilities, that earlier action by the Council would have resulted in a different educational placement or alternative arrangements for Y. However, the delay created uncertainty about whether a more suitable outcome could have been achieved sooner.
56. By July 2025, the Council had established that none of the schools consulted could meet Y’s needs. Given Y’s complex needs and the responses received from schools, I find no fault in the steps the Council took at this stage. However, its inability to identify a suitable and available placement amounts to service failure. Y remains without a sustainable long-term placement that has confirmed it can meet their needs.
57. Since her complaint to the Ombudsman, and outside the scope of this investigation, the Council has completed a reassessment of Y’s needs, obtained updated professional advice and carried out further consultations. Those consultations also failed to identify a suitable placement.

Back to top

Action

58. To remedy the injustice cased by the above faults, within four weeks of the date of my final decision, the Council has agreed to:
• Apologise to Miss X in line with our guidance on Making an effective apology; and 
• Pay Miss X a total of £1,500, comprising:
1. £900 as previously offered, to recognise the loss of education and special educational provision between June and September 2024;
2. £300 to recognise the loss of special educational provision between September 2024 and 2025; and
3. £300 to recognise the uncertainty caused by the Council’s failure to adequately monitor Y’s reduced timetable and the delay in consulting alternative school placements.
• The Council should also write to Miss X setting out the steps it is currently taking to identify a suitable long-term educational placement for Y, together with details of the interim arrangements it considers appropriate pending identification of a suitable placement.
59. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

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

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman