City to review cases of 137 permanently excluded pupils placed on alternative provision waiting list

The woman behind the original complaint, Miss X, complained that the council failed to provide alternative education for her child, Y after they were permanently excluded from school in December 2024.

As a result, she said Y missed out on educational provision.

According to the Ombudsman's report, the council provided Y with alternative provision at the end of March 2025.

At the start of April 2025, Miss X complained to the council. She said:

• Y had been excluded from school in December 2024, and she had appealed the decision; and
• an independent review panel (IRP) had taken place, but she had not received the outcome of this or a response for a complaint made to the school four months earlier.

In its response, the council said an IRP decision was binding and could only be challenged through court.

Miss X escalated her complaint. She said:

• the council had failed in its duty to provide Y with education by the sixth day of exclusion;
• only after she had contacted the council after two months had she had any response about Y’s education after their permanent exclusion; and
• the school were refusing to provide a final complaint response.

The council provided a response at the end of May 2025. It said its response at stage one about Y’s exclusion remained the same, it apologised for delaying in responding to Miss X regarding Y’s education before the sixth day after exclusion and said the school complaint had to be addressed by the school governors as per policy.

Miss X raised further concerns relating to the council’s duties to provide alternative provision to Y after the sixth day. She said she had needed to chase the council after six weeks and the delay had been detrimental to Y.

The council’s responses in June 2025, said:

• it was sorry for the delay from December 2024 to March 2025 in providing Y with alternative provision. It recognised that not ensuring provision by the sixth day of permanent exclusion was not acceptable;
• it was pleased Y was now dual registered at two schools where they had started this provision at the end of March 2025; and
• the council was developing a wider offer of opportunities for young people in Y’s position including, actively working with alternative provision providers, significantly investing to commission further placements and creating three new teams to support attendance, exclusions and alternative provision.

Miss X replied to the council's response, saying it had used the wrong name when referring to Y in its responses, further it had recognised it was at fault and therefore should provide her with compensation.

She remained dissatisfied with the council’s actions and responses and asked the Ombudsman to investigate.

Responding to the Ombudsman’s enquiries, Birmingham said it had referred Y for alternative provision within the six days after exclusion, however no places were available. As a consequence, Y was placed on a waiting list.

It said Y was not offered any tuition because a significant number of exclusions occurred during the same period, and Y secured a placement before it could be organised.

The council told the Ombudsman that 237 pupils had been permanently excluded across all key stages during the same period as Y (December 2024 to March 2025). Of these, 137 were placed on its alternative provision waiting list, with an average waiting time of 20 days.

It said it recognised during this period, it did not consistently meet the statutory sixth-day duty to put alternative provision in place for all permanently excluded pupils.

Concluding the case, the Ombudsman said: “The council had a statutory duty to provide Y with a suitable education by the sixth day after their exclusion. The council did not provide Y with a suitable full-time education between the beginning of December 2024 and the end of March 2025. This is fault which caused distress, uncertainty and a loss of a full term’s education for Y.

“The council has acknowledged that it dd not provide alternative provision to 137 pupils within the statutory six days after permanent exclusion between December 2024 and March 2025. This service failure is fault. We cannot say to what extent this has caused those pupils an injustice. However, I have made a recommendation for the council to address the matter and to reduce the delays going forward.”

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

• Apologise to Miss X for the delay in providing Y with alternative provision and the distress, frustration and uncertainty caused.
• Make a symbolic payment of £1,200, to recognise Y’s loss of educational provision for one term and the distress, frustration and uncertainty this caused Miss X.

Additionally, it was recommended to, within three months of the final decision:

1. Review the cases of each of the 137 permanently excluded pupils placed on the waiting list between December 2024 and March 2025. Where its six-day statutory duty to provide alternative provision was not met it will:
   1. contact the parent or guardian of those identified pupils and advise them it did not meet its six-day statutory duty for alternative provision and provide them with an update; and
   2. provide details about how those identified can complain through the council’s corporate complaint procedure.
2. produce an action plan to identify how it will meet its six-day statutory duty to provide alternative provision to pupils after permanent exclusion. The action plan should include but is not limited to:
   1. a review its commissioning arrangements with alternative provision providers to ensure it has sufficient capacity;
   2. the actions it will undertake to reduce capacity constraints within its alternative provision system;
   3. the actions it will take to reduce current waiting lists and times for permanently excluded pupils; and
   4. timeframes for any action to be taken.

A spokesperson for Birmingham City Council said: ““We note the findings of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in this case and have accepted its recommendations.

“The Ombudsman found there were failings in how alternative education provision was arranged. We recognise the impact this had on the family and have apologised for the distress and disruption caused.

“We have taken steps to remedy the injustice identified, in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations, and are continuing to review our processes to ensure lessons are learned and improvements are made.

“Providing appropriate education for children who cannot attend school is a priority, and we are committed to strengthening our processes and working with partners to ensure that suitable provision is put in place as quickly as possible when it is needed.”

Lottie Winson