The Ombudsman's final decision
Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about alternative educational provision. Miss X was above compulsory school age when she was unable to attend the placement named in her Education Health and Care Plan, and the Council had no duty to offer alternative educational provision. It met its duty by reviewing the Plan and issuing a fresh Plan within the time allowed. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s action to warrant further investigation by us.
The complaint
Miss X, represented by her mother, Mrs x, said the Council failed to make alternative educational provision for her or the provision specified in Section F of her Education Health and Care (EHC) Plan. She said this lasted 12 weeks and Mrs X had to pay for two online courses in the meantime. She wanted the course costs reimbursed.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
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.(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))
How I considered this complaint
I considered information provided by the complainant.
I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.
My assessment
Despite the raising of the participation age for education or training to 18, the alternative education duty under s.19 of the Education Act 1996 does not apply to children outside compulsory school age. This ends on the last Friday in June in the school year in which a child turns 16. While it is good practice to support children above compulsory school age who are unable to attend an education placement, there is no absolute duty as with children of compulsory school age.
However, there is a duty to hold an emergency review of an EHC Plan where a child or young person’s placement breaks down. There is also a duty to issue an amended EHC Plan within 14 weeks of deciding to do so.
Miss X was above compulsory school age when she was unable to attend the placement named in her EHC Plan. There was an emergency review of the EHC Plan and an amended Plan, naming other provision, was issued well within the timescale set out. The Council could have decided to reimburse the cost of the two online courses, but it did not have to. And while it could have offered alternative educational provision before it issued the new EHC Plan, there was no duty to do so.
Final decision
We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our involvement.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman