A mother who was forced to give up her job to look after her child has been awarded £2,000 in compensation by Salford Council – and may get more. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman made the award and ordered the local authority to apologise to the woman, ‘Ms X’, over its failure to provide adequate education to her child. He said Ms X had told him she has had to give up work to look after the child ‘Y’ while they have not been attending school. “The council’s failure to act has caused Ms X distress, frustration and inconvenience through needing to follow up with the council on repeated occasions,” his report said. He ordered the city council to make a ‘symbolic payment’ of £300 and a further £1,500 to Ms X for the benefit of her child for the authority’s failure to provide suitable alternative provision from the end of June 2022 to mid-February 2023. The authority was also ordered undertake ‘appropriate assessments’ to establish whether its legal duty under the Education Act 1996 is owed to Y based on their school attendance levels from February 15 to now. If so, a further ‘remedy payment’ should be made to Ms X and Y. Consideration should also be undertaken over whether additional support is required to help Y catch up with a view to attaining their GCSEs and completing their secondary education. In the summer of 2021, Y was admitted to hospital and was subsequently absent from school and struggling to attend because of high levels of anxiety and distress. Mrs X worked with the school to arrange a reduced timetable to help encourage Y back to school. In September 2022, a representative supporting Ms X emailed the council to advise that Y was struggling significantly with attending school and had not been receiving full-time education since August 2021. The city council was told Y was no longer able to attend school, but was receiving no support. The representative asked the authority to arrange suitable alternative provision for Y in line with its duties under section 19 of the Education Act. 1996. From the end of October to early November 2022 there was correspondence back and forth between the city council and Ms X over [parental] consent forms for access to education. At the end of November 2022, Ms X made a stage one complaint about the lack of alternative provision for her child. The city council responded saying it could not proceed without consent from Ms X. She returned the completed consent form to the city council on the same day. Ms X escalated her complaint to stage two in January this year, questioning the city council’s approach of insisting on consent and alleged ‘it was gatekeeping its alternative provision process, contrary to the legislation’. The city council’s Access to Education Panel met on January 9 and decided that it did not owe Y alternative provision as it had been informed by Y’s school that they were receiving a reduced timetable two days a week attending an alternative provision. The school had also informed the council that Ms X was happy with this arrangement. However, Ms X brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on February 14 as she remained dissatisfied with the city council’s handling of the case. In late March, Ms X told the education welfare officer that Y was struggling significantly with attending even the reduced timetable at school and their attendance had dropped to 44 per cent. The Ombudsman’s report said: “The law is clear that where a school does not make appropriate arrangements for a child who is not receiving a suitable education through illness or ‘otherwise’, the council must intervene and make such arrangements itself. “The duty arises after a child has missed 15 days of education either consecutively or cumulatively.” It goes on: “By the time Ms X’s representative contacted the council again in mid-September 2022, it had already known about Y’s absence and low school attendance for over two months. “Had the council taken any meaningful action at the end of June 2022, it would have been clear that Y had already been absent or had very low attendance at school for more than 15 days and the council’s section 19 [legal] duties were likely to be engaged. “The city council should have started to plan for alternative provision when it became clear that Y would be absent for more than 15 school days. Its failure to do so was fault. “The city council’s failure to communicate directly with Ms X and her representative to ask whether the reduced timetable and other measures by the school were working for Y also appears to be fault.” The Ombudsman also said the city council’s insistence for [parental] consent ‘added unnecessary delay’ to the process of determining whether an alternative education provision duty was owed to Y. “I welcome the city council’s confirmation that its guidance for alternative provision no longer includes this requirement,” his report said. “When the city council’s Access to Education Panel considered Y’s circumstances, it does not appear to have sought sufficient information about the barriers to Y accessing education or their overall attendance. “It also does not appear to have considered whether the support being offered to Y is effective or suitable for their age, ability, aptitude or special educational needs. “I understand Ms X has recently sought an assessment of Y from an educational psychologist, which may highlight additional support needs. “The city council’s failure to act sooner in Y’s case means that they have not received a suitable education for a considerable period of time, which I understand from Ms X continues to be the case.” He said, as a result, the city council should provide a [further] remedy for missed education. Within three months of the publication of the Ombudsman’s decision, the city council has been ordered to review and, if needed, amend its mechanism for how schools inform it of the details of pupils who fail to attend school regularly, or have missed 10 school days or more, as outlined in statutory guidance. Staff should also be given guidance to include clear advice about the need to promptly decide whether it has a duty to secure alternative education provision (the section 19 duty) or consider taking enforcement action under the Education Act 1996. Its Access to Education policy must also ensure that the need for parental consent does not place ‘an unnecessary barrier’ in the way of making decisions on whether a section 19 duty is owed to a child absent from education. The city council should then provide training or notices or bulletins to relevant staff to highlight any changes to guidance and/or procedure. Salford City Council spokesperson said: “The council has apologised to the parent and has agreed to implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations."
