Summary: Mrs M complains her daughter, G, has missed a considerable amount of school due to anxiety. Limited tuition was provided on behalf of the Council when G’s school reported problems in December 2022, and the Council increased provision in May 2023 when there had been no progress on plans to re-integrate G to school. However, the Council has not explained why the tuition provided was not full-time sooner. G missed education as a result.

The complaint

1. Mrs M complains her daughter, G, has missed a considerable amount of school due to anxiety. She complains she has had to pay for tutors.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. 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 we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. 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(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I have considered information provided by Mrs M and information provided by the Council. I invited Mrs M and the Council to comment on my draft decision.

Back to top

What I found

5. Mrs M’s daughter, G, is a pupil at a mainstream secondary school.
6. G has missed a considerable amount of school due to anxiety.

Mrs M’s complaint to the Council

7. Mrs M complained to the Council on 16 January 2023. She said G had been unable to attend school full-time since October 2021 due to emotionally based school avoidance. She said the school had recorded G’s absence as ‘authorised absence’ due to her anxiety. She complained G had not received suitable education. She believed the Council should have been aware of G’s absence and intervened sooner.
8. The Council responded to Mrs M’s complaint on 13 February 2023. The Council said G’s school should be providing support and sending work home. The Council said the school had not referred G to the Education Inclusion Partnership Team, the Council service that provides support for children experiencing attendance issues. The Council did not uphold Mrs M’s complaint.
9. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mrs M complained again on 22 February 2023. She said she believed the Council was responsible for G’s education and should have recognised she needed support from the ‘authorised absences’ recorded in the school register. She said the school had contacted the Education Inclusion Partnership Team and had done everything it could to support G, but she needed further support from the Council.
10. The Council responded on 23 March 2023. The Council said it had not been aware of G’s absence from school because the school had not referred to the Education Inclusion Partnership Team. As G was on roll at a mainstream school, the Council said the school was responsible for her education and support. The Council suggested Mrs M complain directly to the school.
11. Unhappy with the Council’s response, Mrs M complained to us.
12. In June 2023, Mrs M informed me the Council had agreed to pay for tutors. While she was pleased with this development, Mrs M still wished to pursue her complaint about the education G had missed.

Education for children who do not attend school

13. The Council has a duty, outlined below, to arrange suitable education for children who would not otherwise receive suitable education. The Council is – in effect – a “safety net”.
14. The Education Act 1996 says every council shall “make arrangements for the provision of suitable education at school or otherwise than at school for those children of compulsory school age who, by reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise, may not for any period receive suitable education unless such arrangements are made for them.” (Education Act 1996, section 19(1))
15. Suitable education means efficient education suitable to a child’s age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have. (Education Act 1996, section 19(6))
16. The education provided by the Council must be full-time unless the Council determines that full-time education would not be in the child’s best interests for reasons of the child’s physical or mental health. (Education Act 1996, section 3A and 3AA)
17. The Government has issued statutory guidance which Councils must follow unless they have good reason. (Ensuring a good education for children who cannot attend school because of health needs, issued by the Department for Education in January 2013)
18. Government guidance says Councils must work closely with schools to identify children who need the Council to make alternative arrangements for their education. Councils must consider the individual circumstances of each particular child and be able to demonstrate how they made their decisions.
19. The Local Government Ombudsman has issued guidance to councils on how we expect them to fulfil their responsibilities to provide education for children who, for whatever reason, do not attend school full-time. (Out of school… out of sight? Ensuring children out of school a good education, published in July 2022)

Consideration

20. Mrs M complained the Council should have made alternative arrangements for G’s education much sooner. She believes the Council should have been aware that G was not receiving suitable education when the school recorded her absences as ‘authorised absences’ due to illness. She believes the Council should have provided help since 2021.
21. Councils do not routinely monitor authorised absences. There is no duty on them to do so. The onus is on schools, or parents, to notify the Council when there are problems.
22. The Council was not aware of G’s problems until December 2022 when the school called in the Council to help.
23. The records show the Council met with the school to discuss G’s case. The Council concluded there was no role for the Education and Inclusion Partnership. This service deals with attendance and behaviour issues. G’s problems were related to her anxiety.
24. Shortly after the meeting with the Council, the school made a referral to the hospital outreach education service. This is an alternative provision academy that provides education for children who are unable to attend school regularly for health reasons. The Council was not directly involved. However, the hospital outreach education service fulfils the Council’s duty to make alternative arrangements for children who are too ill to attend school.
25. In response to my enquiries, the Council said the primary aim of the hospital outreach education service was to support G’s return to school. The Council said the hospital outreach education service provided tutoring in English and computer studies because these were the subjects G identified as her priorities for reintegration to school. The Council said the school provided work through the ‘Edulink’ platform and offered a ‘telepresence robot’. G declined the ‘telepresence robot’. Mrs M arranged and paid for tuition in maths and science.
26. In May 2023, the hospital outreach education service held a review meeting. Mrs M, the school and the Council all attended. Following the meeting, the Council agreed a ‘support package’ in collaboration with the school. The Council agreed to fund 10 hours of tuition per week and to work with the school towards securing G’s reintegration.
27. In response to my enquiries, the Council explained this was because the time-limited support from the hospital outreach education service was coming to an end, the Council had decided not to issue an Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan for G, and Mrs M and G had declined the offer of a ‘telepresence robot’.
28. Mrs M is happy with the support package provided by the Council. She believes it should have been in place sooner.
29. I appreciate the initial plan was to support G’s reintegration to school, but the Council has not explained why the hospital outreach education service decided to do this one subject at a time, starting with computer studies. The Council has not provided any evidence to show that G was unable to cope with a full-time alternative education to support her reintegration to school. One of G’s concerns was that she was missing out and falling behind, so it is difficult to understand the focus on a single subject.
30. The Council says G declined the offer of the ‘telepresence robot’ which would have enabled her to participate in, or at least follow, all lessons. It appears the Council accepted G’s decision. The Council does not appear to have considered alternatives.

Conclusions

31. The evidence shows the Council was aware of problems from December 2022.
32. The Council concluded there was no role for its Education Inclusion Partnership, and G’s school should make a referral to the hospital outreach education service instead. The Council said in its complaint response that G’s education was her school’s responsibility. That was not correct, since the hospital outreach education service arranges alternative education on behalf of the council for children who would not otherwise receive suitable education.
33. The hospital outreach education service provided limited tuition with a view to supporting G’s return to school. The Council has not provided evidence to show that full-time education would not have been in G’s best interests for reasons of her physical or mental health, or that support in just two subjects was as much education as she could cope with.
34. In May, when this had not been successful, the Council increased the provision to 10 hours of tuition. The Council has not provided evidence to show why this level of support was not provided five months sooner, from the beginning of 2023. This is fault. As a result, G missed a considerable amount of education. This is an injustice.

Back to top

Agreed action

35. We have published guidance to explain how we recommend remedies for people who have suffered injustice as a result of fault by a council. Our primary aim is to put people back in the position they would have been in if the fault by the Council had not occurred. When this is not possible, as in the case of Mrs M and G, we may recommend the Council makes a symbolic payment.
36. I recommended the Council apologises to Mrs M for the faults I have identified and makes a symbolic payment of £1,500 to acknowledge the fact G did not receive the full package of support arranged in May 2023 from the beginning of the year. The payment acknowledges the tuition Mrs M arranged and paid for herself.
37. I recommended the Council makes the payment and sends the apology within six weeks of my final decision.
38. We can also make recommendations to ensure similar faults do not happen in the future.
39. I recommended the Council reviews its policies and procedures to ensure that in future it can demonstrate it, or anybody acting on its behalf, has considered the individual circumstances of each particular child who may need the Council to make alternative arrangements for their education. The Council should be able to demonstrate how it made decisions, including decisions not to make alternative arrangements for a child’s education. The Council should be able to demonstrate any education offered was both suitable and full-time. If the education is less than full-time, the Council should be able to provide evidence to demonstrate why.
40. I recommended the Council writes to us to explain what it has done, and any changes it has made or proposes to make, within two months of my final decision.
41. The Council should provide us with evidence it has complied with the above actions.
42. The Council accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Final decision

43. I have completed my investigation as the Council accepted my recommendations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman