Summary: Mr F complained the Council failed to secure a suitable education for his daughter. We found fault which caused uncertainty about what provision could have been made in 2024/25 and delay in putting alternative provision in place which caused a loss of provision for one term in 2025/26. The Council has agreed to apologise and make symbolic payments to remedy that injustice.

The complaint

1. Mr F complained the Council failed to:
• Secure a special secondary school place for his daughter since September 2024.
• Arrange an annual review of her education, health and care plan in 2024.
• Respond to his emails and messages.
2. As a result, his daughter has been out of education, has not received her special educational needs provision and he lost an opportunity to appeal to the Tribunal. This has caused significant distress to the whole family, adversely affecting their mental health and wellbeing. In addition he has had to leave work and fund extracurricular activities. Mr F wants education for his daughter, financial redress and for the Council to communicate better with the family.

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. We cannot investigate late complaints unless we decide there are good reasons. Late complaints are when someone takes more than 12 months to complain to us about something a council has done. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26B and 34D, 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.
8. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
9. 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)
10. 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

11. Mr F came to the Ombudsman in October 2025. This means, as set out in paragraph 6, that complaints about events prior to October 2024 are late. However, I am exercising my discretion to investigate from February 2024 to October 2025 because the complaint process was not completed until September 2025.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

12. I spoke to Mr F about his complaint and considered the Council’s response to my enquiries and:
• The Special Educational Needs and Disability Code of Practice ("the Code")
• The statutory guidance, Alternative Provision (updated February 2025)
13. Mr F and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant law and guidance

Special educational needs

14. A child with special educational needs (SEND) may have an Education, Health and Care (EHC) plan. The EHC plan sets out the child's educational needs and what arrangements should be made to meet them. The Council is responsible for making sure that arrangements specified in the EHC plan are put in place and reviewed each year.
15. Parents have a right of appeal to the Tribunal if they disagree with a decision not to assess, the SEND provision, the school named in their child's plan, or the fact that no school or other provider is named.
16. The Ombudsman cannot look at complaints about what is in the EHC plan but can look at other matters, such as where support set out has not been provided or where there have been delays in the process.

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. A council can consider holding an early review if there is a change in the child’s circumstances.
18. 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. The 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. (Special Educational Needs and Disability Regulations 2014, reg 20(10))
19. 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. 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 (i.e. 12 weeks from the review meeting).
20. The council must review and amend an EHC plan in enough time before a child or young person moves between key phases of education. This allows planning for and, where necessary, commissioning of support and provision at the new institution. The review and any amendments must be completed by 15 February in the calendar year in which the child is due to transfer into or between school phases. The key transfers include primary school to secondary school.
21. The Code says that where a child or young person is not attending an educational placement, the local authority should arrange the review. (SEND Code of Practice, paragraph 8.177)

Alternative provision

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 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.
24. 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.
25. The Alternative Provision statutory guidance says that councils should maintain oversight of alternative provision placements to monitor progress and consider whether changes are needed.

What happened

26. I have summarised the key events.
27. Mr F’s daughter, J, has autism, a health condition and mental health problems. She was due to start secondary school in September 2024. There was an annual review of her EHC plan in October 2023 and a draft EHC plan was issued. In February 2024 the Council agreed to consult with special secondary schools, including Mr F’s preference, School X.
28. School X told the Council it could not meet J’s needs. The Council issued a final EHC plan on 28 February. As it had been unable to find a secondary school placement, the plan named J’s primary school from September 2024. At this point, Mr F had the right to appeal to the Tribunal.
29. The Council continued to consult with schools and in July it referred J for alternative provision. Mr F had told the Council home tuition would not be suitable for J, the referral therefore says tuition was to be provided outside the home.
30. On 24 July, the Council told Mr F it had arranged alternative provision with Provider 1 to start in September. This would be 15 hours tuition per week, location to be determined.
31. Mr F complained to the Council that it had not yet found a secondary school placement for J. He said home tuition would not be suitable. I have seen no evidence Provider 1 delivered the tuition.
32. The Council consulted with more schools in October. It did not arrange the annual review.
33. Mr F emailed the Council on 27 November complaining that J had no school place. He said the family was funding extracurricular clubs, had not had any response to their messages and the situation was having a significant adverse impact on J.
34. I have not seen evidence of any other action after this.
35. On 5 July 2025, Mr F complained again and chased a response to his November email. The Council said it had not received the email. It replied to Mr F’s complaint on 4 August. It apologised that no school had yet been found, it said it was searching for independent specialist education. It also apologised for not responding to Mr F’s messages.
36. An annual review was held on 13 August. This noted J was out of school and recommended changes to the EHC plan. A draft EHC plan was issued on 26 August. In September, the Council consulted more schools, including School X. It attached the draft EHC plan.
37. The Council's final response to Mr F's complaint on 24 September said it had consulted more schools and would refer J for alternative provision. The final EHC plan was issued on 13 October. Mr F came to the Ombudsman and appealed to the Tribunal. The new alternative provision started in December.

My findings

38. As J was due to move to secondary school the Council had to amend her EHC plan by 15 February 2024. It issued the final plan on 28 February but this did not name any secondary school. At this stage Mr F had a right to appeal to the Tribunal. But I do not consider it was reasonable for him to exercise this right as there was no school placement to appeal for. As set out in paragraph 8, I have therefore exercised discretion to investigate the provision made after the final EHC plan was issued in February 2024.
39. The Council continued to search for a suitable secondary school placement and it arranged for alternative provision to be made from September 2024. I do not find fault.
40. Mr F says home tuition was not suitable for J but the evidence I have seen shows the provision offered by Provider 1 from September was not meant to be delivered at home. I have seen no evidence the alternative provision was made but I do not find this was caused by fault by the Council.
41. The Council failed to arrange the annual review in October, this was fault. As a result there was a lost opportunity to consider J's alternative provision, issue a draft EHC plan and consult with more schools in autumn 2025. Mr F also lost the opportunity to appeal to Tribunal about an amended final EHC plan. Given the problems finding a secondary school, on balance I do not find it likely that a school placement would have been found if there had been an annual review. Nonetheless, Mr F was caused uncertainty about whether other alternative provision could have been made for J.
42. I have not seen any evidence the Council reviewed the alternative provision for the rest of the school year. This is fault. This again causes Mr F uncertainty about what provision could have been made.
43. The Council continued to consult schools in September 2025. This is what we would expect it to do, but my view is that the failure to find a school placement is nonetheless service failure. Councils have duties to ensure sufficient places and can direct many types of schools to admit pupils. I cannot see the Council has challenged any of the schools that have declined a place or considered directing an admission. This case should have treated as urgent and supervised by managers.
44. The Council mitigated the injustice this service failure caused by commissioning further alternative provision in September but this did not start until December 2025. I can see no good reason for this delay so find it was fault which caused J to miss out on provision for one term (September to December 2025).
45. Mr F says the Council consulted schools with an out-of-date EHC plan but I have seen no evidence of this. The consultations in September 2025 attached the draft EHC plan from August 2025. There was a missed opportunity to consult schools with a new draft EHC plan after an annual review in October 2024 which caused uncertainty about whether a placement would have been found.
46. Mr F says the Council wrongly told him he could not apply for non-catchment schools. The Council has no evidence of giving this advice. I therefore do not have any evidence of fault.
47. The Council has already apologised for failing to respond to Mr F’s messages. This is an appropriate and proportionate remedy in line with our guidance.
48. In summary, I have found:
• There was no fault in the Council's actions between February and September 2024. I have seen no evidence that the failure to provide alternative provision in September 2024 was caused by fault by the Council.
• It was fault to not hold the annual review in October 2024. This caused uncertainty and lost appeal rights.
• It was fault not to review the alternative provision in the academic year 2024/25. This again caused uncertainty about what provision could be made.
• It was service failure to not find a school placement.
• There was delay putting alternative provision in place in September 2025. This is fault which caused J to miss out on provision for one term.
49. When we have evidence of fault causing injustice, we will seek a remedy for that injustice which aims to put the complainant back in the position they would have been in if nothing had gone wrong. When this is not possible, we will normally consider asking for a symbolic payment to acknowledge the avoidable distress caused. But our remedies are not intended to be punitive and we do not award compensation in the way that a court might. Nor do we calculate a financial remedy based on what the cost of the service would have been to the provider. This is because it is not possible to now provide the services missed out on.
50. Our guidance on remedies says for uncertainty caused by fault, a moderate symbolic payment up to £500 may be appropriate. Where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the harm caused by that loss. Taking into account J’s SEN, that she was at a significant stage in her school career and that Mr F lost a right of appeal, my view is that £2,400 is an appropriate amount.
51. Mr F says they had to stop working as J was out of school. We do not recommend remedies that reimburse loss of earnings. This is because we cannot usually, on balance, establish a clear and causal link between the fault and the claimed injustice of lost earnings. There are frequently other factors, personal circumstances and choices involved. Such payments are therefore best resolved by the courts.

Back to top

Action

52. Within a month of my final decision, the Council has agreed to apologise to Mr F and pay him:
• £500 to remedy the uncertainty caused by the failure to hold the October 2024 annual review and the failure to monitor the alternative provision in 2024/25.
• £2,400 to remedy the lost provision for the autumn term 2025 and the lost appeal rights.
53. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

54. There was fault by the Council. The actions the Council has agreed to take remedy the injustice caused. I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman