Council failed to provide child with education in statutory timescale after school exclusion, Ombudsman finds

The Ombudsman noted in its report that following a permanent exclusion, a council has a statutory duty to arrange educational provision from the sixth day after the exclusion.

The woman behind the complaint, Miss X, complained that the council failed to make educational provision after her son, Z, was permanently excluded from school. She told the Ombudsman that this caused stress for the whole family, that she had to take time off work and that her son missed out on education and “mixing with peers”.

Outlining the background to the case, the Ombudsman said Z was permanently excluded from school in December 2024.

At the end of January 2025, when no offer of alternative education had been made and after Miss X raised concerns, the council identified this failing and escalated the case to a service manager.

In February 2025, the council emailed Miss X saying that it could currently offer four hours of online one to one tutoring for literacy and numeracy and potentially science, as well as 2.5 hours for fitness and personal development.

In an email the following day, after Miss X had queried what was going on, the council responded saying there had been “miscommunication” about which service within the council should have provided the interim education. It said it would respond as part of the formal complaint.

Miss X explained that she wanted to discuss the situation with the case officer before responding to the offer. The council asked Miss X to respond saying that if online learning was not appropriate it could provide tuition in the home or a community setting.

On 24 February, Miss X said that she had not heard from the case officer for weeks, even though she had made multiple attempts to contact her. She said she was not accepting the offer.

The council continued to consult schools to try to find a place for Z.

At the time of the investigation, the Ombudsman observed: “While [the council] has consulted around 10 institutions, to date it has not identified a placement for Z.”

Analysing the complaint, the Ombudsman said: “Following a permanent exclusion, a council has a statutory duty to arrange educational provision from the sixth day after the exclusion. The council failed to do this which is fault. Due to miscommunication between different teams within the council, no education provision was offered until 5 February meaning Z missed out on approximately one month’s education.”

The report observed that the council did make an offer of alternative education in February 2025.

It added: “While this was initially limited to six and a half hours per week, it did state this could be reviewed and increased as appropriate. The council’s offer indicated flexibility in terms of how and where it was delivered and that the hours could be increased according to Z’s ability to cope.”

The Ombudsman was therefore “not persuaded” the lack of education provision from 5 February onwards was as a result of fault by the council.

Turning to the second element of the complaint regarding Z’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, the Ombudsman found that while the council made an initial offer of some tuition, it did not evidence how it considered this would meet the requirements of the EHC Plan.

The report noted: “The offer made in February 2025 has not changed even though Miss X has said it does not meet Z’s educational needs. There is nothing to suggest the council has reviewed its position since February or offered any of the specific provision named in section F of the EHC Plan. This is fault.”

Finally, the Ombudsman acknowledged that the council has agreed to carry out a new assessment of Z’s special education needs.

The Ombudsman said: “The outcome of this assessment will inform how his needs can be met and I would expect an amended EHC Plan to be issued as a result. Once a final EHC Plan is issued, if Miss X disagrees with the provision or institution named then she would have a right of appeal.”

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

• apologise to Miss X and Z;
• make a payment of £500 to recognise the failure to offer alternative provision for a month after Z was excluded from school;
• make a payment of £2,500 to recognise the failure to meet its section 42 duty for the period from February to October 2025;
• continue to update Miss X every fortnight; and
• ensure the reassessment of Z’s needs is completed “without further delay” and within the 14-week timescale from the date it agreed to carry out a re-assessment.

An East Sussex County Council spokesperson said: “We accepted the findings and have apologised to Miss X and her child. We continue to work towards finding suitable alternative provision that will meet the child’s needs.”

Lottie Winson