If your child of compulsory school age is not receiving suitable education, and it is not reasonably possible for them to take up the schooling that already exists, the Local Authority has a duty to arrange it. Not the school. The Local Authority. That duty does not depend on a diagnosis, a doctor’s note, or your child being on a school roll.
It does depend on that second condition, which is judged objectively rather than on how the situation feels, and that is the condition most articles leave out. This guide covers England. It explains section 19 of the Education Act 1996, the duty most families in this situation have never heard of, the routes that enforce it, and the honest limits of it.
The duty itself
Section 19(1) says each Local Authority “shall 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.”
Three phrases carry the weight.
“Suitable education” is defined at section 19(6) as “efficient education suitable to his age, ability and aptitude and to any special educational needs he may have”. Suitable for your child, not suitable in the abstract.
“By reason of illness, exclusion from school or otherwise” gives three routes in. The third one is the widest and the least known. The test for it comes from the Court of Appeal in R (G) v Westminster City Council [2004] EWCA Civ 45, applied in R (R) v Kent County Council [2007] EWHC 2135 (Admin): the duty arises where it is not reasonably possible for a child to take advantage of any existing suitable schooling. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman states the same test this way: “‘Otherwise’ is a broad category which covers circumstances other than illness or exclusion in which it is not reasonably possible for a child to take advantage of any existing suitable schooling.”
Two things follow from that, and they decide most cases. It is an objective test, so it turns on whether the education on offer can reasonably be accessed by this particular child, not on how strongly anyone feels about it. And where a school place is available and your child could reasonably access it, the duty does not arise, even where you are unhappy with the school. In R (G) the child had been bullied, but the school remained suitable and accessible, and his withdrawal did not make the Local Authority responsible for his education. The same applies if you have chosen to educate at home: while you are electively home educating, the responsibility for providing suitable education is yours under section 7 of the same Act, and section 19 is not the route.
“At school or otherwise than at school” means the answer does not have to be a school building.
Section 19(3A) adds that the education must be full-time, unless section 19(3AA) applies, which is where the Local Authority considers that for reasons relating to your child’s physical or mental health it would not be in their best interests. In that case it can be part-time on whatever basis the Local Authority considers is in their best interests. If you are quoting the law back, cite both subsections together.
One more point about the duty, because it is the answer to the most common excuse. Money is not a defence to it. In R v East Sussex County Council, ex parte Tandy [1998] AC 714 the House of Lords held that what counts as “suitable education” is decided by educational criteria and that the authority’s shortage of resources is not a relevant factor. The case was about section 298 of the Education Act 1993, which section 19 re-enacted. The judgment does leave room to consider cost when choosing between two ways of providing suitable education, but not to decide that less education is suitable because it costs less.
The duty is the Local Authority’s, not the school’s
This is the single most common place things go wrong, and the Ombudsman has said so plainly. Its key learning point: “the local council has the duty to arrange alternative education, not the school a child attends… Councils can contract out their services, but not their responsibility.”
So if you are being passed between a school that says it has done what it can and a Local Authority that says it is the school’s job, the section 19 duty sits with the Local Authority.
There is one clear exception, and it matters because it decides who you should be writing to. Where a pupil is suspended, that is excluded for a fixed period, the duty to arrange suitable full-time education sits with the school’s governing body or trust board, from the sixth school day of the suspension. That comes from section 100 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 with regulation 3 of the Education (Provision of Full-Time Education for Excluded Pupils) (England) Regulations 2007. Where a pupil is permanently excluded, it is back to the Local Authority, from the sixth school day following the exclusion, under regulation 4 of the same Regulations.
You do not need a doctor’s note
The belief that nothing happens without medical evidence keeps children at home for months. It is not what the guidance says.
The Ombudsman, in a published case: “While councils must take account of any available medical evidence, they must make their own decision about alternative education, even when there is no medical evidence.”
The DfE’s statutory guidance says the same in a different way: “Where specific medical evidence, such as that provided by a medical practitioner, is not readily available, the child’s home school or the local authority should consider liaising with other medical practitioners and consider other evidence to ensure appropriate provision can be arranged as soon as possible.”
It also says: “Once a parent / carer has provided evidence from a medical practitioner, local authorities should not demand continuing evidence without good reason, even where a child has long-term health problems.” And: “Local authorities must not have lists of health conditions which dictate whether or not they will arrange education for children, or inflexible policies which result in children going without suitable education.”
Now the honest limit, because we would rather you walked in accurate than confident. The absence of medical evidence does not automatically mean a Local Authority is at fault for saying no. In one Ombudsman case the Local Authority was found not at fault, because it had no medical evidence and the school had evidenced that it remained accessible to the child.
The accurate line is this: a Local Authority cannot refuse to consider the duty just because you have no letter, but it can lawfully decide the duty has not arisen if it properly weighs everything it does have. Which is why what you send them matters.
When it should start
Where the reason is health, there is no absolute statutory deadline, and any article that gives you one is overstating it. What the guidance says is this.
“As soon as it is clear that a child will be away from school for 15 days or more because of their health needs, the local authority should arrange suitable alternative provision. The 15 days may be consecutive or over the course of a school year.”
Note “or over the course of a school year”. Fifteen scattered days count.
Then: “that education should begin as soon as it is possible, and at the latest by the sixth day of the child’s absence from school.” Where an absence is planned, for example a stay or recurrent stays in hospital, the guidance is firmer than that, and worth quoting exactly: local authorities “must make suitable, timely arrangements, unless exceptional circumstances apply, in advance to allow provision to begin from day one”.
For absences that are not about health, the separate alternative provision guidance uses the sixth school day as well. And where the absence is an exclusion, the sixth school day is not guidance at all. It is fixed by the 2007 Regulations above.
How many hours
There is no statutory minimum, and this is where expectations and reality most often collide.
The guidance says: “The law does not define full-time education but children with health needs should have provision, where possible, which is equivalent to the education they would receive in a mainstream school.” It adds that where a child receives one-to-one tuition, “the hours of face-to-face provision could be fewer as the education may be more intensive”.
You will see “22 to 25 hours a week” quoted widely. That figure comes from the Ombudsman, not from the law. Its 2025 guide puts it this way: “Full-time education is not defined, but is commonly agreed to be equivalent to between 22 and 25 hours a week, depending on the age of the child. However, if a council is arranging one-to-one tuition, fewer hours might well be appropriate, given the increased intensity of learning.”
Treat it as the Ombudsman’s working benchmark, which is exactly what it is, and a useful one. Four hours a week of online tuition is a long way from it.
One more line worth having: “Digital technology should be used to complement face-to-face education, rather than be used as sole provision.”
How often this goes wrong
The Ombudsman published a practitioners’ guide in October 2025 with a figure worth knowing: “Between April 2024 and March 2025, we completed 400 detailed investigations into the issue. In 92% of those investigations, we found evidence that things had gone wrong, sometimes with devastating consequences for children who had missed out on significant periods of education.”
Where fault has caused a loss of education, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance says it “will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 to £2,400 per term”.
We are not telling you this to promise you a payment. We are telling you because parents in this position are routinely made to feel unreasonable, and 92% of 400 investigations is the opposite of unreasonable.
Before anyone talks about attendance action
If the conversation you are having is about fines rather than education, the attendance guidance (statutory, last updated 9 July 2026) is worth quoting back.
Paragraph 56, on pupils with long term physical or mental health conditions or SEND: “Their right to an education is the same as any other pupil and therefore the attendance ambition for these pupils should be the same as it is for any other pupil but additional support may need to be provided.”
Paragraph 59 sets out what schools are expected to do for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities: work in partnership with parents, ensure the provision in an EHC plan is accessed, remove the in-school barriers these pupils face, and make “formal reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 where a pupil has a disability”. Read that last one carefully. The reasonable adjustments duty is owed to disabled pupils, and disability has its own legal test under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. Not every child with SEND meets it, and some children who are not on SEN support at all do.
Paragraph 62: “Medical evidence for recording absences should only be needed in a minority of cases.”
Paragraph 185 sets out the considerations a school is expected to make before issuing a penalty notice, including: “Is issuing a penalty notice in this case appropriate after considering any obligations under the Equality Act 2010 such as where a pupil has a disability?”
And paragraph 63 puts legal action where it belongs: “as a last resort”.
One practical point on attendance contracts. Paragraph 142 says an attendance contract “is not legally binding” and that “Parents cannot be compelled to enter an attendance contract”. Paragraph 154 adds the part that decides cases: there is no criminal sanction for refusing to sign one, but if attendance does not improve and it later goes to prosecution, “any failure or refusal may be presented as evidence in the case”. So if you decline, decline in writing and give your reasons.
One thing to be clear about: age 16
The section 19 duty applies to children of compulsory school age. For young people above it, section 19(4) gives the Local Authority a power to make arrangements, not a duty. Parents often assume the section 19 duty simply continues. It does not, and knowing that early changes how you plan for a young person’s sixteenth year.
If your young person has an EHC plan, that is a separate and stronger position, and it does not stop at 16. Section 42(2) of the Children and Families Act 2014 says the Local Authority “must secure the specified special educational provision for the child or young person”, and that applies for as long as the plan is maintained, up to age 25.
There is also a limit at the other end of compulsory school age that almost nobody mentions. Section 19(1A) switches the section 19 duty off for a child “who will cease to be of compulsory school age within the next six weeks” and who “does not have any relevant examinations to complete”, meaning any public examinations or other assessments they have been entered for. If your child still has exams to sit, the duty is still there.
If the Local Authority still does nothing
There are two different problems here, and they have two different routes. Picking the wrong one costs months.
If the Local Authority accepts the duty and then does not deliver, the duty is enforceable in court. In R (LB) v Surrey County Council [2022] EWHC 772 (Admin) the High Court found a breach of section 19 and made a mandatory order requiring the Local Authority to arrange education within 30 days, rejecting the argument that practical difficulty excused it. Judicial review is not something to start on your own, and it is time limited: rule 54.5 of the Civil Procedure Rules requires a claim to be filed “promptly; and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds to make the claim first arose”. If your child is out of education now and nothing is moving, that is the conversation to have with a specialist solicitor early, including about legal aid.
If the education has already been missed and what you want is acknowledgement and a remedy, the Ombudsman is the route. Complain to the Local Authority first, because the Ombudsman cannot look at a complaint before that has happened, and it expects you to give the Local Authority a reasonable time to respond, which in most cases it puts at up to 16 weeks. Bring it to the Ombudsman within 12 months of first knowing about the problem. One thing to be aware of: the Ombudsman cannot normally investigate something you have or had a remedy for in court (section 26(6) of the Local Government Act 1974), although it may still do so where it is not reasonable to expect you to have gone to court.
And one route that does not cover this. The SEND Tribunal hears appeals about the matters listed in section 51 of the Children and Families Act 2014: refusals to assess, refusals to issue a plan, the content of a plan, the school named, refusals to amend after a review, and decisions to cease. A Local Authority failing to deliver provision it has already agreed is not on that list, so if that is your problem, do not let anyone send you to the Tribunal instead of the routes above.
There is a consultation open right now
On 10 July 2026 the Department for Education opened a consultation called “SEND reform: education otherwise than at school”. It closes at 11:59pm on 18 September 2026.
One thing to get straight before you read it, because the Department wrote the consultation partly to fix this confusion. Education otherwise than at school, EOTAS, means special educational provision arranged outside a school or further education setting under section 61 of the Children and Families Act 2014 and set out in an EHC plan. Alternative provision is the Department’s name for education arranged under the section 19 duty this guide is about. In the consultation’s own words, “Although related, these are two distinct forms of education provision, underpinned by different legislation.” Chapters 1 and 2 are about EOTAS. Chapter 3 is the one about children receiving alternative provision because their health needs cannot be met in school. Chapter 4 is about accredited online providers.
These are questions, not settled plans. Among them: which model should be used for commissioning and overseeing EOTAS, including whether a named school or further education setting should hold that responsibility and whether it should be shared with the Local Authority; whether the voluntary national standards for non-school alternative provision published in 2025 should be extended to EOTAS provision, which the Department says “could become mandated”; and how schools, Local Authorities and health partners should work together for children who cannot attend because of health needs.
The timing matters. The Department intends to legislate through the Education for All Bill, “with changes coming into effect from 2029/30”, and says plainly: “Until any changes are implemented, the current statutory framework remains in place.” Nothing in this guide changes because a consultation is open.
We are not going to tell you what to think about it. We are telling you it exists, that it is open to parents, and that there is a version written for parents and carers alongside the main document. If your family is living this, your evidence is the kind the consultation is asking for.
Your week one plan
- Write to the Local Authority, not just the school. Say: my child is not receiving suitable education, I am asking you to consider your duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996, please tell me your decision and your reasons in writing.
- Say why it is not reasonably possible for your child to take up the school place that exists. That is the question the duty turns on, so answer it directly rather than leaving it to be inferred.
- Send whatever evidence you have, and do not wait for the piece you do not have. A CAMHS waiting-list letter, a GP appointment record, a school email, your own dated log of what happens at the school gate: all of it is evidence.
- Ask two specific questions: what is being arranged, and from what date. Vague reassurance is not an answer.
- Keep a dated record of every request and every reply. Whichever route you end up taking, that record is the case.
- If provision is offered, ask how many hours and whether any of it is face to face.
- Consider responding to the consultation before 18 September.
Where to get free help
Every Local Authority must arrange advice and information about SEN and disability for children, young people and their parents (section 32 of the Children and Families Act 2014). The SEND Code of Practice says that information, advice and support “should be free, accurate, confidential” (paragraph 2.8), and in practice SENDIASS services are free. IPSEA runs a free advice line you book an appointment for, plus a free call-in helpline on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. SOS!SEN runs a free helpline in term time, which is closed over the summer and reopens on 7 September 2026. Contact holds the family-life end of it. Our free course, SCOPE, walks the letters and the process.
Sources: Education Act 1996 sections 19 and 7; Education and Inspections Act 2006 section 100; The Education (Provision of Full-Time Education for Excluded Pupils) (England) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1870); Children and Families Act 2014 sections 32, 42, 51 and 61; Equality Act 2010 sections 6 and 20 (all legislation.gov.uk); Civil Procedure Rules rule 54.5; R v East Sussex County Council, ex parte Tandy [1998] AC 714; R (G) v Westminster City Council [2004] EWCA Civ 45; R (R) v Kent County Council [2007] EWHC 2135 (Admin); R (LB) v Surrey County Council [2022] EWHC 772 (Admin); Department for Education, “Education for children with health needs who cannot attend school”, statutory guidance, last updated 14 December 2023; Department for Education, “Alternative provision”, statutory guidance, February 2025; Department for Education, “Working together to improve school attendance”, statutory guidance, last updated 9 July 2026; SEND Code of Practice: 0 to 25 years (2015); Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, “Out of school, out of sight?” (2022, updated August 2023) and “Supporting children out of school” (October 2025); LGSCO Guidance on Remedies, updated 3 November 2025; Department for Education, “SEND reform: education otherwise than at school” consultation, opened 10 July 2026.