In this issue we zoom in on a recent, October 2025 focus report published by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGO) concerning local authorities’ duty to make alternative educational provision for children unable to attend school (so called ‘section 19 duty’). LGO’s thematic reports highlight common or systemic issues identified during LGO’s investigation of complaints with the aim of helping local authorities improve policy and practice and preventing future injustice. This issue will be of interest to those wanting to learn more about the ‘section 19 duty’, and the LGO’s approach to complaints; we also share information about the remedies available to children and families who experienced injustice as a result of local authority faults.
Supporting children out of school: Guide for practitioners
Most relevant legislation and government guidance
Section 19(1) Education Act 1996 requires local authorities in England to
“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”.
This is often referred to as the ‘section 19 duty’.
Subsection (3A) requires this type of provision to be full-time, unless the child’s physical or mental health needs mean that part-time education best meets their needs.
‘Suitable education’ is defined in subsection (6) as “efficient education suitable to [the child’s] age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs [they] may have”.
The corresponding statutory guidance, updated in early 2025, is ‘Arranging Alternative Provision A Guide for Local Authorities and Schools’.
[It will be important for advocates and other professionals to consider this legislation and guidance alongside other relevant law and guidance, e.g., that related to the educational achievement of looked after children; education health and care plans (EHCPs); the right to education under the European Convention on Human Rights, including in the context of exclusions.]
The number of detailed investigations of complaints relating to local authorities’ ‘section 19 duty’ has risen significantly over the past several years (from 38 in 2021/22 to 400 in 2024/25). In 92% of those recent investigations, the LGO found evidence of local authority fault/s which led to, in some cases, “devastating consequences for children”.
The main lessons learned identified by the LGO concern being decisive and person-centred, and working in partnership with families and all relevant agencies.
Being decisive relates to timely and clear decision-making about the ‘section 19 duty’. LGO’s investigations identified the following key steps:
On discovering a child is missing education, the local authority should investigate the reasons for this, including by making any necessary enquiries, and decide whether the ‘section 19 duty’ arises. Local authorities should listen to parents/carers’ concerns rather than insist on referrals for alternative education being made exclusively by schools.
Where medical or other evidence is needed to justify alternative education arrangements, it should be sought by the local authority at the earliest opportunity while taking into account the well documented challenges of obtaining evidence (e.g., long waiting lists for mental health services).
Georgia’s story: When Georgia started refusing to attend school, the local authority offered to arrange a limited amount of home-based education saying that the school, not Georgia’s family, was responsible for making a referral for alternative provision. The local authority subsequently refused a request from Georgia’s school for additional funding on the basis that an assessment of Georgia’s special educational needs would need to be completed first. The LGO’s investigation concluded that (1) the local authority had failed to record any decision in relation to its ‘section 19 duty’ towards Georgia for over six months (despite multiple meetings and extensive communication with the family and the school); and (2) the council restricted access to section 19 arrangements by insisting on formal referrals from schools. The LGO found that the council was at fault for failing to arrange suitable alternative education from when conversations about Georgia’s non-attendance started. The recommended remedies were: (a) a symbolic payment of £1,800 a term; (b) guidance for council staff to improve future practice.
Offering person-centred provision relates to arranging alternative provision based on children’s individual circumstances and keeping these under review based on their changing needs.
While every effort should be made to provide full-time alternative education to children unable to attend school, part-time provision may be more suitable for some children. Where such a decision is made based on the individual child’s needs and best interests, there should be a written record to support this, referencing any professional opinion/s which informed the decision.
For children who have an education health and care (EHC) plan, the council retains an ongoing duty to arrange the provision set out in the plan.
Finally, councils are expected to be able to demonstrate how they have considered a child’s needs and reached decisions regarding alternative provision. Regular reviews of the suitability of the agreed arrangements and planning for the child’s reintegration into their usual school (where possible and in line with their best interests) should be the norm.
Haden’s story: Haden stopped attending school due to mental health difficulties. The following month, the local authority refused Haden’s mother’s request to arrange alternative provision because no evidence had been provided in support of the request and Haden’s school had prepared a reintegration into school plan for him. A few months later, a report from an educational psychologist confirmed that Haden was unable to attend school. This was reviewed by the council’s psychologists and Haden was offered four hours a week of home tuition, which was later increased to seven. The LGO’s investigation found that, while the initial refusal was justified, the limited offer of alternative education later was unclear and lacked a rationale. The recommended remedies were: (a) a plan for Haden’s education which reflects the law and statutory guidance; (b) a symbolic payment of £1,000 to recognise loss of full-time education during one term.
Clear communication – effectively communicating and sharing information with families and relevant agencies, i.e., health professionals, schools, educational psychologists, SEND local authority teams, children’s social care, school transport and housing, is key to informed decision-making about alternative educational provision. Local authorities are also required to inform families, in a timely manner, about their right to complain about decisions they don’t agree with.
Owain’s story: Owain’s mother informed his school he was too unwell to attend due to anxiety and fatigue. Following a meeting with Owain’s family and the school, and after reviewing evidence from an occupational therapist, the council decided there was reason why Owain could not attend. After new medical evidence was shared, temporary alternative provision was arranged by the local authority, but Owain’s mother raised concerns about it being inadequate and not reflective of his health needs. The LGO’s investigation found both correct practice – meeting with the school and Owain’s family, reviewing evidence, recording and communicating its decision about the section 19 duty and later revising its decision – but also faults. These included (1) failing to keep Owain’s family involved and informed and (2) failing to respond to concerns about inadequate provision in a timely manner. The recommended remedies were: (a) an apology; (b) a symbolic payment of £200 for the avoidable distress caused; (c) a review of the council’s working practices to improve communication with families of children unable to attend school.
Finally, the LGO stresses the importance of preparing and communicating decisions in plain English, as well as effectively signposting children and families to other services which might facilitate access or re-entry into education.
Remedying injustice caused through local authority faults – financial payments
Where the LGO finds that a child has lost out on alternative education due to local authority faults, a remedy of between £900 and £2,400 per term will be usually recommended to acknowledge the impact of this on the child. Where the fault/s caused uncertainty, e.g., the council failed to follow its section 19 policy but it’s impossible to determine what the outcome would have been for the child even if the fault had not occurred – the LGO might recommend a lower payment of up to £500 to recognise the impact of uncertainty.
These amounts reflect the LGO’s approach to remedies, as set out in its ‘Guidance on remedies’.
Subject-specific remedies guidance – Education out of school / Alternative provision – states:
“Where we have investigated and found fault, we will recommend appropriate remedies. In assessing the remedy we should take account of any provision the council made or offered.”
Available remedies include:
Corrective action – such as reviewing the level and suitability of provision; providing additional tuition or equipment; or identifying a suitable school place and arranging admission.
Quantifiable loss – reimbursing the cost of educational materials, tuition, or childcare paid for by parents/carers; this needs to consider costs that are a reasonable consequence of identified fault.
Symbolic payments – where fault has resulted in a loss of educational provision, the LGO will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 and £2,400 per term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. The figure should be based on the impact on the child and take account of factors such as: the child’s special educational needs; any educational provision that was made during the period; and whether additional provision can now remedy some or all of the loss.
Service improvement – reviewing policies and procedures to make sure the council retains sufficient oversight and control, particularly of any outsourced provision arrangements.
The full report, ‘Supporting children out of school: Guide for practitioners’, October 2025, along with other thematic reports, can be accessed on the LGO’s ‘Focus Reports and Good Practice Guides’ web page: https://www.lgo.org.uk/information-centre/reports/focus-reports.