Summary: We have discontinued our investigation into a complaint that the Council did not accept a request to carry out education, health and care needs assessments, because it would be disproportionate to continue. There was no fault in the way the Council arranged alternative provision for a child not attending school, or in the conduct of social workers it allocated to the case.

The complaint

1. I will refer to the complainant as Miss C.
2. Miss C complains:

• the Council has not accepted her request it complete education, health and care (EHC) needs assessments for her daughters, to whom I will refer as G and W;
• the Council has not implemented alternative provision for G; and
• social workers from the Council’s early help service acted inappropriately, causing G and W distress.

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. 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 s34H(1), as amended)
4. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Miss C and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. I also shared a draft copy of this decision with each party for their comments.

Back to top

What I found

7. G has been diagnosed with autism, and at the time of Miss C’s complaint to the Ombudsman, had not attended school since December 2024. Miss C considers W also has autism, and although she had been attending school, her attendance level was poor, to the point Miss C had recently decided to withdraw her from school and electively home educate her.
8. In September 2025, Miss C submitted a complaint to the Council, concerning both G and W. Miss C’s complaint covered some matters for which the Council was responsible, but also included elements for which the children’s schools and the NHS was responsible. We do not have jurisdiction to consider these latter parts, and so, for the sake of simplicity, I will only describe the elements of Miss C’s complaint which fall to us to investigate.
9. Miss C said the Council’s early help service had allocated a student social worker to the family’s case, but did not inform them her placement was temporary. She said the social worker did not have autism training, had “overwhelmed” W and led to her self-harming. Then, when a new social worker took over, Miss C said she attempted to arrange a meeting with G’s school, against Miss C’s explicit wishes. She also complained the service had failed to provide the animal-based support programmes she had requested.
10. Miss C said the Council had also failed to carry out EHC needs assessments for G and W, arrange alternative educational provision for them, make reasonable adjustments, and that delayed responding to her emails. She said that, as a result, she had been forced to leave her job, and had suffered a deterioration in her own mental health. She asked the Council to compensate her approximately £33,000 in lost earnings, as well as for the impact of the Council’s faults on her daughters and their loss of education.
11. The Council responded in October. It said that, although Miss C had “voiced a view in correspondence” that the Council should carry out EHC needs assessments for the children, it had no record of receiving a completed request form from her. The Council acknowledged Miss C’s view the children’s schools should have made the request, but noted that, although G’s school had said it had completed the form, it had not been able to submit it yet because Miss C had not agreed it.
12. The Council noted Miss C had requested animal-based support programmes for the children, but explained these were not available at the time. It said Miss C had contacted the Council to request support from its early help service in February, and that it had allocated a social worker, who completed an assessment in March
13. The Council said the social worker had made clear she was a student from the outset. It acknowledged she had not explained how long she had left in her placement, but said, in most cases, the service’s work supporting families takes less than the two months she had remaining, and so it was not inappropriate to have allocated the case to her. The Council noted G had found a visit from the social worker to be difficult, but said the social worker had used the normal tools available to her, particularly in trying to understand G’s anxiety.
14. The Council acknowledged the handover to the new social worker was “not as ‘warm’ as [it] would have preferred”. It said it had attempted to arrange a meeting with Miss C as part of the handover, but had postponed this at Miss C’s request, meaning the new social worker had introduced herself by phone. It explained the new social worker had discussed the meeting’s postponement with the G’s school, which had expressed concern about the delay, and she had then asked if Miss C would agree to a meeting just with her and the school. However, Miss C had then asked for an end to the service’s involvement.
15. The Council said G’s school had, in March 2025, asked for its help in identifying tuition for G because she was not attending. It had agreed funding for a 12-week package of tuition in April, but, despite initially being positive about this, in May Miss C had said face-to-face tuition at home was not appropriate for G. Then, in June, Miss C had said she did not want the tuition to start before the school summer holidays.
16. The Council agreed there was an unreasonable delay between its agreement to arrange tuition and the identification of a suitable tutor, but said this was common during the summer term due to poor availability of tutors. It said that, in September, it had revised the planned package to five hours of tuition per week, and had carried out a new search for potential providers. Having identified a suitable one, tuition was due to start in October, but Miss C had then said she did not wish G to have a male tutor. At Miss C’s request the Council then arranged online group tuition, which had begun in mid-October.
17. For W, the Council said it had become aware of her low school attendance in February 2025. It said her school had not asked for specific support, but had been working to create a transition package with the school W was due to transfer to in September. However, it noted Miss C had chosen to withdraw W from the new school in mid-September and home educate her instead. The Council explained it had no duty to provide support in these circumstances, although it would consider any request Miss C made for a school placement for W.

Back to top

Legislative background

EHC needs assessments

18. 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.
19. Statutory guidance ‘Special educational needs and disability code of practice: 0 to 25 years’ (‘the Code’) sets out the process for carrying out EHC needs assessments and producing EHC plans. The guidance is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014. It says: 

• where the council receives a request for an EHC needs assessment it must decide whether to agree to the assessment and send its decision to the parent of the child or the young person within six weeks;
• if the council decides not to conduct an EHC needs assessment it must give the child’s parent or young person information about their right to appeal to the Tribunal; and
• the process of assessing needs and developing EHC Plans “must be carried out in a timely manner”. Steps must be completed as soon as practicable.

Alternative provision

20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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.

Back to top

Analysis

23. I will address each point of Miss C’s complaint in turn.

EHC needs assessments

24. Miss C complains the Council has not completed EHC needs assessments. However, the Council says it has not received a completed request form from Miss C.
25. The law does not require a person to complete any particular form to request their local authority complete an EHC needs assessment. The Council should accept such a request in whatever format it is made, provided the request is clear.
26. In this case, I note the Council acknowledges Miss C had “voiced a view” it should carry out needs assessments, but it is not clear what it means by this. The Council has provided me with a copy of the extensive series of correspondence between it and Miss C, but having reviewed it, I cannot see any obvious point where she asked the Council to carry out needs assessments. This is not to say I do not believe she did, simply that I cannot make my own judgement on what she said.
27. But, on the basis of the Council’s own comments, I am concerned it may have failed to accept a valid request from Miss C for an assessment, on the basis she did not follow a process the law does not actually require. We refer to this practice as ‘gatekeeping’, and we consider it to be a form of fault.
28. Even if that is the case, I am not persuaded it necessarily made any significant difference in this instance. I cannot overlook that G’s school had completed the request form for her, and was ready to submit it to the Council, but could not because Miss C had refused to sign it. As I understand it, this was because she did not agree with some of the tone of what the school had written, believing it did not accurately convey the root cause of G’s anxiety.
29. Miss C was entitled to this view. However, the form was merely a request for an assessment; it was not the assessment itself, and it was certainly not a completed EHC plan. Even if there was gatekeeping by the Council, therefore, this does not appear to be the only reason for the delay in carrying out an assessment.
30. On balance, I do not consider I have sufficient evidence to make a finding one way or the other, but I also do not consider there is anything worthwhile to be gained by further investigation. I will therefore discontinue my investigation of this element of Miss C’s complaint. I would ask the Council to note my concern, however, as it is something we may criticise in other cases in future.
31. I have discontinued my investigation of this element of Miss C’s complaint.

Alternative provision

32. Miss C complains the Council did not make arrangements for G to receive alternative educational provision, in accordance with its section 19 duty, after she stopped attending school in December 2024.
33. In its response to Miss C’s complaint, the Council said G’s school contacted its Inclusion Team in mid-March 2025, to request support in finding a tutor because she was not attending school, and that this was the beginning of its involvement in her case. In fact, the Council’s response also notes Miss C had highlighted this when she contacted the early help service at the end of February – information which, rightly speaking, the service should have passed to the Inclusion Team.
34. But, equally, I note the school’s referral to the Inclusion Team was just over two weeks later, and so this delay was unlikely to be of significant consequence, given the wider context.
35. Once the Council became aware of G’s situation, and had decided her absence engaged its section 19 duty, it was then for the Council to arrange suitable alternative provision for her. While this should be done without undue delay, the law does not impose a specific deadline for arrangements to be in place.
36. The Council has explained that, in April, it agreed a 12-week tuition package for G, which Miss C expressed her support for. However, in May, she explained face-to-face tuition was not suitable for G; and then, in June, she asked the Council to postpone arrangements until the new academic year. The Council agreed to this, but with the necessary commissioning process, and further intercession by Miss C, suitable arrangements were not finally put in place until mid-October.
37. From the point the Council became aware of G’s situation, this meant she missed approximately six additional months of school time before alternative provision began. However, given the various complications involved in making the arrangements, I find it difficult to draw the conclusion this was the result of fault by the Council. It is unfortunately the case that tuition packages (of all types) are not always immediately available, and it is also clear Miss C’s specific requirements meant delays in the process.
38. I am conscious the Council itself described the delay in commissioning a package as ‘unacceptable’, which could be read to mean it was accepting fault. But the Council went on to explain this was because of the particularly low availability of tutors during the summer term, and so I do not consider this can be fairly read as a proper admission of fault.
39. Taking these points together, although there was a significant delay before alternative provision started, the evidence does not show this was due to fault by the Council.
40. I find no fault in this element of Miss C’s complaint.

Early help social workers

41. This element of Miss C’s complaint includes three points:

• the original social worker did not explain her placement would be ending soon;
• she caused W distress by the way she sought to engage with her; and
• the replacement social worker attempted to arrange a meeting with G’s school, against Miss C’s express wishes.

42. The Council has explained the original social worker made clear she was a student from the outset. I have seen copies of correspondence between Miss C and the social worker, and I can see her email signature includes the word ‘student’, so I am satisfied this is accurate.
43. The Council has accepted the social worker did not explain her placement was due to end in two months, but it says the early help service’s work with families usually takes less than this, and so it was not inappropriate to assign the original social worker to Miss C’s case. I share this view. While it was unfortunate her placement ended while the case was still open, it is always possible that a case may need to be reallocated, for one of a wide variety of reasons, and I do not consider this can reasonably be called fault.
44. Similarly, the Council has explained the social worker used the normal tools available in her attempt to engage with W. I acknowledge W had a poor reaction to this, causing her to self-harm, and I do not dismiss Miss C’s distress at this, but there is nothing to suggest the social worker should have been able to foresee this as a likely outcome.
45. The Council has also explained the new social worker had suggested a meeting just between herself, the school and Miss C, in response to concerns the school had raised about the proposed delay in meeting. Again, I understand Miss C felt strongly about this, but I am satisfied the social worker’s suggestion was a reasonable attempt at finding a compromise solution. Miss C was not obliged to agree to the meeting and, indeed, she then asked for the early help service’s intervention to end anyway.
46. I find no fault in this element of Miss C’s complaint.

Back to top

Decision

47. I find no fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman