Summary: The Council was not at fault for the way it dealt with Miss X’s child’s educational provision when they could not attend school. We also find the Council replied to Miss X’s complaint.

The complaint

1. Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child with a suitable education. She also complained the Council failed to respond to a complaint.
2. Miss X said the lack of education has affected her child’s mental health and development. Miss X said she feels the Council failed her, and caused stress, emotional distress, and loss of trust.

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 recommend a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
4. 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)
5. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
6. We cannot investigate a complaint if someone has appealed to a tribunal about the same matter. We also cannot investigate a complaint if in doing so we would overlap with the role of a tribunal to decide something which has been or could have been referred to it to resolve using its own powers. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
7. The First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) considers appeals against council decisions regarding special educational needs. We refer to it as the Tribunal in this decision statement.

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

8. In October 2025, Miss X complained to the Ombudsman that the Council failed to provide her child, Q, with a suitable education from October 2024.
9. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. This plan sets out the child’s needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them.
10. Q had an EHC plan. In October 2024, the Council issued an EHC plan for Q. This plan said Q should go to a particular school (School A). Q did not go to many classes at School A. Miss X felt that School A could not meet Q’s needs. Miss X appealed the plan at the Tribunal.
11. In May 2025, the Tribunal said Q should go to School B. Q started attending School B shortly after this.
12. The courts have established that if someone has appealed to the Tribunal, the law says we cannot investigate any matter which was part of, was connected to, or could have been part of, the appeal to the Tribunal. (R (on application of Milburn) v Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman [2023] EWCA Civ 207)
13. This means that if a child or young person is not attending school, and we decide the reason for non-attendance is linked to, or is a consequence of, a parent or young person’s disagreement about the special educational provision or the educational placement in the EHC plan, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision, or alternative educational provision.
14. The period we cannot investigate starts from the date the appealable decision is made and given to the parents or young person. If the parent or young person goes on to appeal then the period that we cannot investigate ends when the Tribunal comes to its decision, or if the appeal is withdrawn or conceded.
15. Due to the restrictions on our powers to investigate where there is an appeal right, there will be cases where there has been past injustice which neither we, nor the Tribunal, can remedy. The courts have found that the fact a complainant will be left without a remedy does not mean we can investigate a complaint. (R (ER) v Commissioner for Local Administration, ex parte Field) 1999 EWHC 754 (Admin). 
16. In this case, the Council issued Q’s EHC plan in October 2024 (this is the appealable decision). Miss X appealed the school named in the plan (School A). The appeal concluded in May 2025. Therefore, we cannot investigate a lack of special educational provision or alternative educational provision during that time at School A.
17. Q started attending School B in the summer term of 2025. During this term, Q was on a reduced timetable so they could transition to that school. Q had difficulties attending School B that term and did not want to go back in the autumn term (September 2025).
18. I find it reasonable to allow some time for the part-time timetable to take effect. This took place during the summer term 2025. I have therefore investigated Q’s educational provision from September 2025.
19. I have investigated up to December 2025 when Q started at a new placement (School C).

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

20. I considered the information and documents provided by Miss X and the Council. I spoke to Miss X about her complaint. I considered the relevant legislation and statutory guidance, set out below.
21. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on an earlier draft of this statement. I considered all comments received before I reached a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

22. 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.
23. 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 special educational need support is designed for the child’s normal classroom setting.

What happened

24. I have outlined the background and some of the events in paragraphs 10, 11, 16 and 17.
25. Q did not go back to School B in September 2025, as Miss X told the Council in the summer.
26. In early September, there was a review of Q’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. In the review meeting, in response to Miss X’s request for a new placement, the Council gave School B six weeks’ notice that Q’s placement at School B would be terminated in early November.
27. In November, Q started some alternative educational provision. Also that month, Miss X complained to the Council. Later that month, the Council issued Q’s EHC plan, naming another school (School C).
28. At the end of November, the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint. It acknowledged Q had found it challenging to attend School B. But the Council said it had supported School B, and School B said it could meet Q’s needs. The Council said Q was due to start at School C shortly.
29. In December, Q started at School C.

Analysis

Educational provision

30. Miss X complained the Council failed to provide her child Q with a suitable education. As I have said above, I have investigated the autumn term of 2025.
31. Q did not return to School B in September 2025. There was a review of Q’s EHC plan early in September. Even though School B said it could still meet Q’s needs, and the Council supported School B, the Council acted on Miss X’s request for a new placement.
32. At the review meeting:
• the Council gave School B six weeks’ notice that Q’s placement would end in early November; and,
• School B agreed to send work home for Q during those six weeks.
33. In October, Miss X told the Council that School B had not sent work home. The Council promptly chased School B about this. I do not find the Council could or should have done more to make sure School B was sending work home.
34. In October, within a month of the review meeting, the Council had sourced alternative provision for Q. Q’s provision started in November. Q started at School C in December.
35. I do not find delay here: I find the Council acted quicky after the review meeting to arrange alternative provision in the interim while it arranged and commissioned a place at School C. This was positive. I find the Council commissioned the alternative provision for the end of the six weeks at School B. I do not find there was a significant time that Q went without educational provision between November and December 2025. I therefore do not find the Council at fault.
36. Miss X told the Council that the alternative provision was difficult for Q to access because it was online, not face-to-face. I do not find this is significant enough to constitute fault in the month from November to December 2025.
37. There was a miscommunication between the Council and one of the providers of Q’s alternative provision. This meant Q missed one session. The Council quickly acted to put Q’s provision back in place. I do not find this is significant enough to constitute fault.
38. I find the provision set out in Q’s EHC plan was designed for their normal classroom setting. I do not find it was necessarily possible for the Council to have arranged this support outside a school environment. So, I do not find fault.

Complaint response

39. Miss X complained the Council failed to respond to the complaint she made in November 2025.
40. I have seen the Council’s response to Miss X, which was sent shortly after Miss X complained. Miss X told me she did not remember getting this response.
41. I find the Council responded to Miss X’s complaint as it should have. I therefore do not find fault.

Back to top

Decision

42. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman