Summary: The Council was not at fault in how it decided it did not need to arrange alternative provision for Mr X’s child, W, when they stopped attending school in December 2024. It was, however, at fault for a delay sending Mr X a copy of W’s Education, Health and Care Plan. This caused Mr X frustration, for which the Council will apologise.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to provide his child, W, with suitable education for five years and that W had been wholly without education since December 2024, which meant they had not received the special educational provision in their Education, Health and Care Plan.
2. Mr X said that, as a result, W’s mental health had suffered and the family’s wellbeing and finances had suffered.

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. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in how the organisation made its decision, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
5. 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)
6. 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

How I considered this complaint

7. I considered evidence provided by Mr X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
8. Mr 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

Law and guidance

Education, Health and Care Plans

9. 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. 
10. The sections include: 

• Section B: Special educational needs;
• Section F: The special educational provision needed by the child or the young person;
• Section G: Any health provision required because of their learning difficulties or disabilities which results in the child or young person having SEN;
• Section H1: The social care provision which must be made for the child or young person under 18 resulting from section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970;
• Section H2: Any other social care provision reasonably required by the learning difficulties or disabilities which result in the child or young person having SEN. (Where relevant this includes adult social care provision to meet eligible needs under the Care Act 2014); and
• Section I: The name and/or type of educational placement 

11. Some children or young people receive Education Otherwise Than At School (EOTAS). This is an educational package normally made up of several different types of provision, all of which are delivered outside of a school or educational placement setting. In those cases, councils must leave section I blank and state the child will receive EOTAS in section F.
12. Councils have 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).
13. 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 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) 
14. 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.
15. There is a right of appeal to the Tribunal against a council’s decision of what provision to include in section F or what school or type of school to name in section I. The right to appeal only arises when the council issues the final amended Plan and notifies the young person or child’s parent.

Children out of education- the duty on parents

16. The Education Act 1996 places a duty on parents to ensure their children of compulsory school age, receive a suitable full-time education. Failure to meet this duty is an offence. Councils have the power to prosecute parents who fail to ensure their child’s regular attendance at school. If the court finds a parent guilty of an offence, they can receive a fine or imprisonment of up to three months.

Children out of education- the duty on councils

17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Statutory guidance “Arranging education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs (Dec 2023)” says councils are not expected to become involved in situations where a child can still attend school with some support, or where a school has made arrangements to deliver suitable education outside of school. The acid test is whether educational provision on offer at school is available and accessible to the child. 

What happened

20. As set out in detail below, my investigation begins in December 2024 and ends in October 2025. The references to events which occurred before then are for context only.
21. This section sets out the key events in this case and is not intended to be a detailed chronology.
22. In June 2024, the Council issued an EHC Plan for W, which named a new school, school A, from September. All the special educational provision in the EHC Plan was for delivery in a school setting.
23. In mid-November, a child who had recently joined W’s classroom made a comment which upset W. W attended school for a further two weeks before stopping attending all together in early December. Initially, Mr X and Ms Y said W’s non-attendance was due to the other student’s comment as it had “unsettled” them. They later said W was not able to go into school because of anxiety and sleep issues.
24. The Council became aware W was not in school immediately. Between December 2024 and October 2025, the Council kept in frequent contact with school A about W’s education. Throughout the period, the Council heard school A was trying different approaches to help W return to school. In December, this included the following provision:
• Putting additional support into place in class;
• Making use of time spent outside of class;
• A reintegration plan intended for the first week in December; and
• “Restorative work” with W.
25. In January, school A confirmed it wanted W to reintegrate and said it was confident W could succeed in the school. Its efforts in that month included the following:
• Arranging a meeting with Ms Y to discuss how W could reintegrate. Ms Y agreed to a meeting but did not respond to efforts to arrange it;
• Introducing a plan to help W get used to being around people they do not like; and
• Potentially moving the child W did not like to another class.
26. By February, Ms Y had spoken with school A and agreed W would try attending morning lessons. W did not attend the first session as Mr X said they were too tired. They did not progress further as in mid-February, Mr X said he wanted to homeschool W.
27. Mr X also said he was concerned about W’s sleep. The Council responded to say Mr X could go back to a children’s sleep service W had accessed previously. It explained that on return to the service, W would have access to higher tiers of support, which had not been available previously.
28. A few days after asking to home educate W, Mr X said he no longer wanted this. The Council encouraged Mr X to engage with school A’s efforts to reintegrate W.
29. In early March, Mr X asked the Council to approve EOTAS for W. He confirmed he would not return to the sleep service. Mr X had also reported W was struggling with anxiety, but he said he would not put W on the waitlist for the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) because the waitlist was too long.
30. By late March 2025, school A held an annual review of W’s EHC Plan on the Council’s behalf. The Council later issued its decision to amend W’s EHC Plan.
31. At the end of March, School A arranged for W to attend every Wednesday afternoon. This did not happen; Mr X said W was not engaging. For the following two weeks, school A tried multiple times to see W in person or online but was not successful.
32. In April, school A contacted Mr X and Ms Y repeatedly about W’s education. It noted:
• It had offered W a personalised timetable and curriculum and education at home without success; and
• If W was unable to go into school because of anxiety, then Mr X and Ms Y needed to provide evidence of this.
33. At the end of the month, Mr X told the Council he felt W needed “professional help” instead of support from a teaching assistant. The Council responded to say that if Mr X felt W’s EHC Plan was wrong for them because it stated they needed support from a teaching assistant, he should request changes through the annual review process.
34. In May, the following events occurred:
• Following discussion with the Council, school A arranged for an educational psychologist to meet with Mr X. At the meeting, Mr X agreed to work with school A to implement strategies it felt would be successful in reintegrating W, in time. This did not happen;
• W’s GP confirmed it was unable to provide a letter stating W was too unwell to attend school; and
• School A continued to try and see W for welfare checks.
35. In early June, school A wrote to Mr X and Ms Y to highlight that W’s absence from school was not authorised, which was not acceptable. Ms Y told the Council she wanted to de-roll W from school A the same day.
36. Between mid-June and early July, the Council had conversations with Mr X and Ms Y to arrange a meeting with them about W’s education.
37. At the meeting in mid-July, Mr X again asked the Council to agree EOTAS and to put alternative provision in place for W. He says the Council refused both for funding reasons. However, records show that immediately following the meeting, the Council asked school A to send it details of a package of provision that could be delivered outside of school.
38. In early August, the Council issued W’s final amended EHC Plan. It continued to name school A in section I and the special educational provision was still wholly for delivery in school. The Council accepts it did not send a copy of the Plan to Mr X until mid-March 2026. Once Mr X had the final Plan, he did not appeal it to the Tribunal.
39. The Council approved the school’s alternative provision package in mid-August 2025. Mr X and Ms Y said the package was unsuitable because W would not want to do some aspects, others were not convenient for Mr X and Ms Y or W’s grandparent to facilitate or were otherwise inappropriate. The package did not go ahead.
40. The Council and school A communicated in September and October about W’s education. The Council heard:
• Mr X had reported W was now not leaving the house at all;
• School A agreed the focus for the first half term of the 2025/2026 school year was for the school to continue welfare checks and to get W out of the house as much as possible; and
• School A had made referrals to the Council’s social care service and CAMHS and tried to visit W, although this had been cancelled by Mr X.
41. In September 2026, Mr X told the Ombudsman he felt W’s autism was the main reason they had been unable to go into school and remained out of education.

Findings

What I have and have not investigated

42. 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)
43. Mr X complained to the Ombudsman in November 2025 about matters dating back five years. The matters which occurred before November 2024 are late. Mr X was unable to give the Ombudsman good reasons why he could not have complained to us sooner so I cannot consider the late period. W was attending school in November 2024 and stopped going in December. Therefore, I have investigated Mr X’s complaint about a loss of education and special educational provision from December 2024 onwards.
44. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint unless we are satisfied the organisation knows about the complaint and has had an opportunity to investigate and reply. This means our investigations normally end on the date the organisation has issued their final response to a person’s complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
45. Mr X received the Council’s response to his complaint in October 2025 so my investigation into Mr X’s complaint of lost education and special educational provision ends then. I have exercised discretion (my choice) to investigate up to March 2026 in regard to how long it took the Council to complete W’s 2025 EHC Plan annual review and issue their amended EHC Plan. That is because without looking up to March 2026, I could not come to a sound decision.
46. Mr X has raised several issues which I have not investigated. These are:
1. The Council suggested W access “Early Help” from children’s social care as a source of support, despite it not working previously;
2. The Council has still not arranged for W to have alternative provision and that it recently said no alternative provision was available before offering two potential settings;
3. The Council has now begun safeguarding procedures with the family because of an allegation that Mr X and Ms Y neglect W;
4. The Council delayed completing the 2026 annual review and has not yet issued an amended final EHC Plan following the review;
5. W’s 2024 EHC Plan failed to include suitable provision relating to their autism, and named school A, which is designed to support children with social, emotional and mental health needs instead of autism. Mr X feels this means school A was unsuitable for W from the start.
6. The March 2026 EHC Plan still did not include suitable provision for W’s autism and named school A instead of EOTAS as Mr X had requested in March and July 2025;
7. At W’s April 2026 annual review meeting the Council indicated it did not intend to make significant changes to W’s education. Mr X is unhappy the Council maintains that school A is suitable for W.
8. Mr X is also unhappy no professionals are currently involved with W, other than school staff. He is specifically unhappy that the Council had refused to arrange for a disability social worker to work with W.
47. Mr X has not complained to the Council about points (a) to (d) and it is reasonable for him to do so, therefore I have not considered them. If Mr X remains unhappy after going through the Council’s complaints procedure, he can complain to the Ombudsman again.
48. I have not investigated points (e) and (f) because the Ombudsman cannot decide what the content of a child’s EHC Plan should have been; that is for the council and Tribunal only. If Mr X felt the 2024 and March 2026 EHC Plans were not suitable, he should have appealed them to the Tribunal at the time.
49. I have not investigated point (g) because Mr X will have the right to appeal the content of W’s final EHC Plan, once the Council issues it after the 2026 annual review. An appeal would be the correct way for Mr X to seek changes to the special educational provision in the Plan, and any decision the Council made about what school or type of school W should attend, or whether they should have EOTAS instead.
50. It is not clear what professionals Mr X wants to start working with W, other than the disability social worker. Mr X has not complained to the Council about its decision not to allocate a disability social worker to W and it is reasonable for him to do so. As a result, I have not investigated that matter.
51. If the other professionals Mr X wants to work with W would help with their special educational needs, Mr X can seek to have that provision included in W’s EHC Plan through an appeal to the Tribunal. If Mr X wants professionals to provide social care or health services he can appeal to have that provision included in W’s EHC Plan if he is otherwise making an appeal on sections B, F or I. If Mr X chooses not to make an appeal to the Tribunal, he can complain to the Council about social care support and to the relevant health service about a lack of health support.

Alternative provision and special educational provision

52. When a child is out of education, and parents state the reason is the child’s health, it is for their council to decide whether the child’s health mean they cannot go into any school, and therefore if they need alternative provision instead. The Ombudsman cannot question a council’s decision if it was made without fault, so I have considered whether the Council was at fault in how it decided it did not need to arrange alternative provision for W.
53. Mr X and Ms Y told the Council W could not attend school A because they were unsettled by a comment made by another student and because of anxiety and sleep issues. They did not provide medical evidence of those factors preventing W attending any school. There is no evidence Mr X told the Council he felt W’s autism was a reason for their non-attendance during the time I have investigated so the Council was not at fault for not considering that factor.
54. Despite the lack of medical evidence from Mr X and Ms Y, the Council nonetheless took their views into account. It heard school A was confident W could attend successfully and worked closely with the school between December 2024 to October 2025 to understand what efforts it was going to, to help W re-integrate. The Council also identified that support was available for W to help with their medical needs and it highlighted that support to Mr X. It was Mr X’s choice to decline to access that support. Taking into account all the evidence available, and keeping that decision under review, the Council concluded school A remained “available and accessible” to W, meaning the duty to arrange alternative provision did not apply. I have seen no fault in how the Council came to its decision, so I cannot question it.
55. Despite deciding it did not owe W the duty to arrange alternative provision, the Council arranged for school A to offer a package of provision outside of school in August 2025. Mr X and Ms Y declined this package because they felt it was unsuitable. That was their decision. The Council was not at fault for not making a further offer before the end of the period I have investigated.
56. The Council owes W the duty to secure the special educational provision in their EHC Plan. It secured that provision by arranging for W to attend school A. Between December 2024 and October 2025 W was not receiving the full provision because they were not in school-full time. However, I have not found the Council at fault in how it decided it did not owe W the duty to arrange alternative provision (and therefore that they could have attended school), so I cannot say the Council was at fault for not arranging for W to have the special educational provision outside of school.

Annual review

57. Mr X first asked the Council to agree EOTAS instead of a school placement for W in early March 2027. The Council began W’s annual review in late March 2025, which was the appropriate way for it to consider whether to agree Mr X’s request. To comply with the statutory timescales, the Council should have issued W’s amended final EHC Plan by mid-June. EHC Plan amendments are only complete once the Council issues the EHC Plan and sends it to young person or child’s parent. The Council did not send the amended final Plan to Mr X until mid-March 2026, nine months late. This delay was fault and caused Mr X avoidable frustration. However, while the fault meant Mr X received the right to appeal the EHC Plan late, this did not cause him an injustice because he did not go on to appeal. Although the March 2026 EHC Plan contained different special educational provision to that in the 2024 Plan, the delay did not meant W missed out on the new provision because it was solely for delivery in school.
58. Mr X feels the Council should have held an early annual review when W stopped attending in December 2024 instead of waiting until March 2025. The Council was not at fault. Councils should hold early annual reviews when there is an apparent urgent need to change a child or young person’s EHC Plan. Between December 2024 and March 2025 there was nothing to indicate W’s EHC Plan needed changing. This is because there was no evidence that W’s special educational provision did not meet their needs or that school A could not deliver that provision once W reintegrated, which the Council had concluded (without fault) was feasible.

Back to top

Action

59. Within one month of the date of my final decision, the Council will apologise to Mr X for the frustration caused by the delay sending him W’s final amended EHC Plan. We publish guidance on remedies which sets out our expectations for how organisations should apologise effectively to remedy injustice. The Council should consider this guidance in making the apology.
60. The Council will provide us with evidence it has complied with the above action.

Back to top

Decision

61. I find fault causing injustice. The Council has agreed an action to remedy that injustice.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman