Summary: We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions when her child was unable to attend school and the support it provided for his special educational needs. There is insufficient evidence of remaining injustice to warrant an investigation, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

The complaint

1. Mrs X complains the Council:
• failed to act properly on her request for her child to access alternative education provision when he could not attend school.
• delayed taking action and made administrative errors, which led to her child missing education.
• failed to ensure delivery named in her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
• did not communicate effectively.
• failed to make reasonable adjustments for her.
2. Mrs X says this has caused anxiety and distress for her and her family.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by Mrs X and the Council.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Mrs X’s child, Y, has an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan. When Y struggled to attend school in February 2025, Mrs X asked for an emergency review, which took place on 7 March 2025. Y attended school on a gradually increasing timetable from March to May 2025 as agreed. On 28 June 2025 Mrs X asked for another emergency review and made a Section 19 request for education other than at school (EOTAS) as Y was no longer able to attend. The emergency review took place on 11 September 2025. The Council agreed to Mrs X’s EOTAS request. Y’s alternative provision began after October half term.
7. Mrs X complained the Council failed to act properly on her Section 19 request. The Council apologised to Mrs X for incorrectly telling her the Section 19 request for Y would be considered at the Fair Access Panel. As Y had an EHCP, this request needed to be considered through the EHCP review process. There is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant an investigation, and another investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
8. Mrs X complained that delays and administrative errors by the Council led to her child missing education from February 2025 until October 2025. During this period Y had a school place; and from April 2025 additional one to one funding was available to support Y to access this provision. The Council worked with Mrs X and the school to put in place a reintegration timetable from the end of March which was effective until June. The Council could not attend a meeting before the end of the summer term, so the review took place in early September. Although the Council issued its decision to amend the EHC Plan one week late and there was a short delay in putting alternative education provision in place, there is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant an investigation. Further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
9. Mrs X complained the Council failed to ensure delivery named in Y’s EHC Plan. From February 2025 until October 2025, Y received the occupational therapy provision set out in the EHC Plan. The other provision was available to Y through the school although it is clear Y struggled to access this. The Council apologised to Mrs X. I will not investigate this aspect of the complaint because there is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant an investigation and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.
10. Mrs X complained the Council did not communicate effectively. The Council said it had responded to all her emails within 10 days, in line with its policy. The Council also said it was unable to inform all parents of changes to personnel. I will not investigate this aspect of the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.
11. Mrs X complained the Council failed to make reasonable adjustments for her. The Council noted Mrs X had previously told its complaints team that she had autism. However, it said it did not share or process this information because it did not have specific permission to do so. The Council said had no records of Mrs X requesting reasonable adjustments. It said it would consider any requests she makes in future and would develop a standardised way of recording parents' additional needs and reasonable adjustments. I will not investigate this aspect of the complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault to warrant an investigation.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint about the Council’s actions when her child was unable to attend school and the support it provided for his special educational needs. There is insufficient remaining injustice to warrant an investigation, and further investigation would not lead to a different outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman