Central Bedfordshire Council fined £500 after failing child with complex needs

This caused the parent distress and her daughter to miss out on education, said a report from the local government and social care ombudsman.

“The mother complained in June 2024 that Central Bedfordshire Council failed to make section 19 provision for her daughter and failed to refer her to its complex needs team, while compelling her daughter’s school to mark her absences as unauthorised.”

CBC issued a stage one response in July and a stage two response later that month, explained the report. “The mother complained the council didn’t provide alternative provision.

“The complaint response said as the head teacher didn’t authorise her daughter’s absence, CBC didn’t need to provide section 19 education.

“CBC said because there were several professionals involved with the daughter already, it would have been an inappropriate use of resources and confusing for her to be referred to the complex needs team as an exceptional case,

“The mother complained the council had considered legal action prematurely. CBC confirmed it normally takes legal action within three months, while her daughter’s case had been continuing for more than a year.

“The mother complained to the ombudsman in August. In response to my inquires, CBC said it has no power to direct schools to record an absence as authorised or unauthorised. Instead, it would direct them to the relevant guidance.

“CBC advised the school to mark the absences as unauthorised if the mother didn’t submit medical evidence, from records available. In its complaint response, the council says alternative provision isn’t available because the daughter’s absences are unauthorised.

“Whether these absences were authorised or unauthorised shouldn’t have made a difference to the case because the legislation and CBC’s policy don’t distinguish between the two when assessing a child for section 19 provision.

“The test is whether suitable education is available which is “reasonably practicable” for the child to access. This is a decision for the council to make, not the school,” added the report.

“CBC hasn’t referred to the correct test for section 19 provision, which is misleading. This is fault, which has caused confusion and uncertainty.

“Asked to provide a record of its decision which shows it considered if this duty applied, CBC referred to a section 19 referral application in January 2024 saying the daughter didn’t meet the formal criteria.

“While the council said it offered such provision, this was roughly six months after the period her daughter’s attendance started to decline. This is delay, which is fault.

“There’s nothing within this form to show CBC considered the duty or assessed the evidence, and no record of its decision-making process within this document at any point. The council failed to record its decision or provide any notes about it. This is fault.

“CBC should have provided the mother with a written copy of its decision that section 19 wasn’t engaged, and set out its reasons. Its failure over this is fault.

“Although CBC says the daughter didn’t meet the criteria, it offered this to her to reintegrate her into school. This limits the injustice.”