Council failed to consider duty to make alternative educational provision when child could not attend school, Ombudsman finds

To remedy the injustice caused, the council has been recommended to pay £7,500, less the amount that it reimbursed the child’s mother, Mrs X, for the tuition she had paid for up to 2 June 2025.

In her complaint, Mrs X claimed that the council had failed to:

• make the provision set out in the child’s Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan;
• organise alternative educational provision when her child became too unwell to attend school;
• complete the child’s EHC Plan annual review in line with the legal timescales; and
• communicate with her properly or deal with her complaints properly.

Mrs X’s daughter, K, has an EHC Plan. The annual review was due in March 2024.

In its report, the Ombudsman said that K started a new school in the autumn term of 2023. The council said it would review K’s Plan early because she had started a new school.

K found it very difficult to attend the new school. In December, the school gave her a reduced timetable because she had significant absence.

By January 2024, the school had given her access to a pastoral space and a 1:1 support worker. There was some improvement in K’s attendance. However, in March, K stopped attending entirely. Mrs X and K were clear she wanted to go to school, but severe anxiety meant she could not.

Between August and December 2024, Mrs X chased the council numerous times for an update on the EHC Plan review.

The council told Mrs X that there was a high demand for EHC Plans and it would need to consult other settings.

Mrs X asked the council about the possibility of a personal budget so that she could arrange and pay for K’s education in the meantime. She also asked about education other than at school (EOTAS).

According to the Ombudsman, Mrs X had arranged an hour per week of tutoring for K with a teacher she already knew.

The council decided that the school should arrange supportive tutoring for K and review this every three weeks to check on progress.

Mrs X contacted the council at the end of January 2025 because she had not heard from the tutoring service, and there had been no progress on the EHC Plan review. The council told Mrs X that it was the school’s duty to provide K’s education and it would not get involved.

In April 2025, the council refused Mrs X’s request for a personal budget. It said that instead it would consult on a specialist placement for K.

A few months later, Mrs X complained to the council again. It agreed to reimburse Mrs X for the cost of the tutoring to date. It accepted that the EHC Plan process was taking too long and it offered to pay Mrs X an additional £250, and K £50 in recognition of the impact of the delays on them both.

At the end of July, the council issued a draft EHC Plan naming EOTAS as the educational provision. However, K wanted to try school again.

In September 2025, the council issued a draft EHC Plan naming a school that K had visited and wanted to try. It issued the final Plan in November.

Considering the case, the Ombudsman concluded the council took “too long” to complete the annual review process of the child’s Education Health and Care Plan, and therefore took over a year to issue the final Plan.

Meanwhile, the council failed to consider properly its duty to make alternative educational provision when K could not attend school.

The report noted: “The Council’s failings meant that K missed out on a suitable education to which she was entitled from March 2024 to June 2025, when the council agreed to fund an EOTAS package. The lack of education and lack of support also caused K and Mrs X distress. Mrs X has described the deterioration in K’s mental health and her isolation. She was under enormous pressure herself, and had to reduce her working hours to care for K.

“Mrs X is clear that the long delays and time without educational provision has meant that her daughter had faced additional barriers trying to return to learning.”

To remedy the injustice caused, the council was recommended to:

• Apologise to Mrs X and separately to K (by an appropriate means to be agreed with Mrs X.
• Pay to Mrs X a symbolic amount in recognition of K’s missed education from March 2024 to June 2025 (around four terms). The council should pay £7,200 (£1800 per term missed or part thereof), less the amount that it reimbursed Mrs X for the tuition she had paid for up to 2 June 2025.
• Pay to Mrs X £300 in recognition of the distress and frustration it caused her when it took too long to reimburse her the cost of tuition she had paid, to complete the EHC Plan review process, and when it mishandled her complaint.
• Share with relevant staff the Ombudsman’s good practice guidance on how it expects councils to fulfil their responsibilities to identify and arrange alternative educational provision.
• Remind relevant staff by way of a staff briefing or similar, that the council remains responsible for making decisions about alternative educational provision, even when the child is enrolled at a school.

Plymouth City Council has been approached for comment.

Lottie Winson