Summary: We found fault with the Council delaying production of Mrs X’s child’s Education, Health and Care Plan provision. We also found fault with the Council not delivering the full provision once it produced the final Education, Health and Care Plan and delayed consideration about Mrs X’s child’s access to education. The Council’s fault caused Mrs X uncertainty and her child to miss provision they were entitled to. The Council agreed to apologise to Mrs X and provide symbolic payments for the injustice she and her child experienced.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complained the Council has not secured the 1:1 provision from their child’s Education, Health and Care Plan since its production in February 2025.
2. Mrs X also says her child has been on a reduced timetable since September 2022 and is now only attending for one hour each day. Mrs X says her child is neither receiving full-time education or Section 19 Alternative Provision of education.
3. Mrs X says the Council’s complaint response does not offer adequate Alternative Provision of education for her child or suitably address her complaint.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

4. 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)
5. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. 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)
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. 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)
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 statement.
9. 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. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to notify the organisation of the complaint and give it an opportunity to investigate and reply. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(5), section 34(B)6)
10. 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)
11. Under our information sharing agreement, we will share this decision statement with the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted).

Back to top

What I have and have not investigated

12. Mrs X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman and appealed to the SEND Tribunal in November 2025.
13. The Ombudsman cannot investigate, without good reason, complaints a person has known about for more than twelve months before they brought a complaint to our attention. Since Mrs X brought her complaint to us in November 2025, we would normally only investigate Mrs X’s concerns from November 2024. Given the proximity of November 2024 to the start of the 2024/2025 academic year in September 2024, I have exercised discretion to consider Mrs X’s complaint from September 2024.
14. I have ended my investigation in November 2025. The reason for this is twofold. Since the Council issued its stage two complaint response in November 2025, the Council has not had opportunity to consider Mrs X’s concerns after this date. The Ombudsman must give the Council opportunity to consider a complaint before we investigate.
15. Second, as part of Mrs X’s appeal to the SEND Tribunal she raised concerns about the suitability of Y’s school placement and the suitability of Y’s EHC Plan provision. By law the Ombudsman cannot consider matters which have been subject to appeal, or where the decision and consequence of the outcome of the appeal are inextricably related to the same matter. Since Mrs X has appealed both the suitability of the EHC Plan provision and its delivery method, through Y’s school, this means the Ombudsman cannot investigate Mrs X’s complaint after November 2025 because of the cross-over with the tribunal appeal.

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

16. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
17. Mrs 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 law and guidance

EHC Plan

18. A child or young person with special educational needs may have an 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. 
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 assessments and producing EHC Plans. The guidance is based on the Children and Families Act 2014 and the SEN Regulations 2014. It says the following: 

• 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. 
• 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. 
• If the council goes on to carry out an assessment, it must decide whether to issue an EHC Plan or refuse to issue a Plan within 16 weeks.
• If the council goes on to issue an EHC Plan, the whole process from the point when an assessment is requested until the final EHC Plan is issued must take no more than 20 weeks (unless certain specific circumstances apply);  

20. Once the Council completes the EHCP it has a legal duty to deliver the educational and social care provision set out in the plan. The local health care provider will have the duty to deliver the health care provision.

Section 19 duty

21. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that councils 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

22. 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.
23. 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.

Good practice guidance

24. We publish good practice guidance on how we expect councils to fulfil their responsibilities to identify and arrange alternative educational provision: Supporting children out of school (October 2025)
25. Our guidance says that councils should:

• consider all the reasons for a child’s absence from school, and make a written evidence-based decision about whether it will arrange alternative education provision;
• communicate this decision as a matter of good practice to parents and where it decides not to arrange alternative education tell parents the expectations about school attendance, and the potential consequences for continued absences;
• ensure the provision meets the individual needs of the child where it decides to arrange alternative education and explain its reasons for providing a part-time education if it decides the child cannot cope with full time provision;
• keep all cases of part-time education under review with a view to increasing when the child is able;
• work with parents and schools to draw up plans to reintegrate children to their normal educational setting as soon as possible, reviewing and amending plans as necessary; and
• ensure effective channels of communication between parents, internal teams, and external bodies (such as schools, and the NHS) so that issues are dealt with promptly by the right people, and that any complaints are identified and responded to under the relevant policy.

26. Where councils arrange for schools or other bodies to carry out their functions on their behalf, the council remains responsible. Therefore, councils should retain oversight and control to ensure their duties are properly fulfilled.

What happened

Background information

27. In March 2024, Mrs X made an EHC Plan Needs Assessment Application to the Council for her child, Y.
28. In June 2024, the Council told Mrs X it would not complete an EHC Plan Needs Assessment. The Council changed its decision in July 2024 and agreed to complete an assessment.

Matters relevant to this complaint

29. In September 2024, Y’s school confirmed with the Council it had placed Y on a reduced timetable in which Y only attended school in the mornings.
30. The Council attended a meeting at Y’s school in October 2024 to discuss Y’s access to education. The school confirmed its plan to gradually increase Y’s access to education with the view to moving Y back into mainstream education but confirmed that Y could not currently cope with this. The Council agreed to the extension of Y’s part-time timetable in which Y attended only mornings. The Council contacted Y’s school for an update in November 2024.
31. In January 2025, Y’s school completed a review of Y’s part-time timetable. The Council did not take part in this review.
32. The Council produced Y’s EHC Plan in February 2025. Y’s EHC Plan named their current school in Section I and outlined the full Section F provision it should deliver for Y. Y’s Section F provision included:
• 1:1 support in Maths and English.
• 1:1 support when accessing technology for 20 minutes daily.
• 1:1 English intervention for 20 minutes daily.
• Close supervision when interacting with peers.
• Provide support throughout the day with one primary trust adult identified.
• 1:1 emotional literacy intervention for 15 minutes daily.
• 1:4 intervention for social interactions for 15 minutes twice per week.
• 2:6 turn taking intervention as part of a nurture-based curriculum for 30 minutes once a week.
• 1:1 intervention on resolving conflicts for 15 minutes twice per week.
• 1:1 social skills intervention daily for one hour.
• Where possible provide practical learning at somewhere like the Forest School for one hour twice per week.
33. Y’s school held further reviews of Y’s part-time timetable in March 2025, April 2025, July 2025 and September 2025. The Council did not take part in these reviews. In June 2025, the Council spoke with Y’s school who confirmed it could meet Y’s needs.
34. In September 2025, Mrs X made a complaint to the Council. Mrs X said Y’s school was not providing full-time education for Y or 1:1 support as outlined in Y’s EHC Plan. Mrs X said Y was on a part-time timetable and the school was not allowing Y to go on school trips.
35. Y’s school held an annual review of Y’s EHC Plan in October 2025. The annual review meeting notes confirmed the school was looking to provide the following for Y:
• 1:8 Social Skills for 30 minutes daily.
• 1:1 writing intervention 30 minutes per day.
• 1:8 Maths learning 30 minutes per day.
• 1:4 understanding emotions for 15 minutes daily.
• 1:6 social interactions for 15 minutes daily.
36. Following the annual review meeting, the Council decided not to amend Y’s EHC Plan. The Council also issued a stage one complaint response to Mrs X’s complaint. The Council said:
• It acknowledged Y’s school had not been able to delivery Y’s full EHC Plan provision and accepted it had not met its legal obligations. The Council said Y experienced dysregulation when certain elements of the EHC Plan were introduced.
• Y’s school is using a reduced timetable to help Y build positive experiences and gradually increase Y’s engagement.
• Y’s school is looking to recruit extra staff to provide Y’s 1:1 support.
37. Mrs X sought consideration of her complaint at stage two of the Council’s process. Mrs X said the Council’s complaint response did not provide a resolution to her complaint.
38. In November 2025, the Council provided its stage two complaint response. The Council said:
• Y’s school was exploring Alternative Provision of education for Y and that it would support this.
• It would not arrange formal Alternative Provision of education for Y because Y had a school place available and the school is taking appropriate steps to support Y’s increase to their education.
• While Y was not receiving full-time education, Y’s school was actively seeking Alternative Provision of education to support Y’s access to education in line with their EHC Plan.
39. Mrs X appealed Y’s EHC Plan to the SEND Tribunal.

Analysis

EHC Plan delays

40. I have not investigated any matters before September 2024. From the start point of this investigation in September 2024, the Council was already beyond the statutory timescales for producing Y's EHC Plan.
41. From September 2024 to February 2025, the Council delayed by 25 weeks outside the statutory timescales in producing Y’s Final EHC Plan. This delay was fault. This delay directly caused Y to miss receiving the provision in their EHC Plan and caused Mrs X inconvenience and frustration.

EHC Plan delivery

42. Once the Council produced Y’s EHC Plan in February 2025, it had a duty to ensure delivery of the full EHC Plan outlined in Y’s plan. The Council can delegate delivery of Y’s EHC Plan to another body, such as Y’s school, but ultimately remains responsible for ensuring this was in place.
43. The annual review meeting held in October 2025 for Y’s EHC Plan and the Council’s complaint response both confirmed Y had not received the full EHC Plan in their plan. This was fault. While Y did not receive the full EHC Plan provision, they did receive some of this provision delivered by Y’s school.
44. However, the Council’s fault still meant Y went from February 2025 to November 2025 without receiving the full educational provision they were entitled to.

Access to education

45. From September 2024, the Council was aware that Y was on a part-time timetable. The Council had a duty to consider the suitability of this part-time timetable and decide how to reintegrate Y into full-time education.
46. I do not find fault with the Council from September 2024 to November 2024. This is because in October 2024 the Council attended a meeting with Mrs X and Y’s school about Y’s education. At this meeting, the Council considered the reasons for Y’s absence, considered the suitability of the part-time timetable for Y and the plan in place to increase Y’s access to education. The Council agreed with this plan. The Council also ensured Mrs X was aware of this through their attendance at the October 2024 meeting. The Council made a decision it was entitled to make and considered the relevant factors with a plan to review the situation in November 2024.
47. However, from November 2024 to November 2025, the Council failed to attend any further review meetings for Y’s part-time timetable. While the Council contacted Y’s school on two occasions for updates about Y, this fell short of being actively involved or making any formal decisions about Y’s access to education. The Council has also confirmed in its response to the Ombudsman that it did not consistently monitor Y’s reduced timetable. The Council also failed to make a formal decision about whether it should arrange alternative provision of education for Y until November 2025. This delay in considering Y’s access to education was fault.
48. When the Council did formally consider Y’s access to education in November 2025 it decided the part-time timetable in place through Y’s school, in combination with the school’s plan to introduce supplementary alternative provision of education, was suitable and accessible education for Y. The Council therefore decided it did not need to arrange alternative provision of education itself. This was a decision the Council was entitled to make and I do not find fault.
49. 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. The Council decided in November 2025 it did not need to arrange alternative provision of education for Y. Prior to this, in October 2024, the Council considered the reduced timetable and reintegration plan was appropriate for Y. On the balance of probabilities, the Council would have made this same decision had it considered the situation appropriately between November 2024 and November 2025. The Council’s delay in considering Y’s situation from November 2024 to November 2025 caused uncertainty to Mrs X, but not lost education for Y. This is because Y continued to access education at the school through this time period on the part-time timetable and this would unlikely have been different had the Council considered the relevant factors sooner.
50. The Ombudsman looks to address uncertainty through apologises and symbolic payments to acknowledge the impact such uncertainty can have. These payments are symbolic in nature and cannot truly reflect the impact on a person.

Back to top

Action

51. Within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision the Council will:
• Provide an apology to Mrs X for the injustice caused to her and her child caused by the delay in considering her child’s access to education from November 2024 to November 2025, delay in production of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan from September 2024 to February 2025 and the failure to provide Y’s full Education, Health and Care Plan provision from February 2025 to November 2025. 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 I have recommended in my findings.
• Pay Mrs X £1,350 to recognise Mrs X’s child’s loss of opportunity to receive provision in line with their Education, Health and Care Plan between September 2024 and February 2025 caused by the delay in issuing the final Education, Health and Care Plan.
• Pay Mrs X £1,800 to recognise its failure to deliver her child’s full Education, Health and Care Plan provision from February 2025 to November 2025.
• Pay Mrs X £500 for the uncertainty caused to her through the Council’s failure to suitably consider her child’s access to education from November 2024 to November 2025.
52. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.

Back to top

Decision

53. There was fault leading to injustice. As the Council has agreed to my recommendations, I have completed my investigation.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman