Frequently Asked Questions

1. The Basics: WHAT IS SECTION 19 AND WHAT DOES IT REQUIRE?

What is Section 19?
 Section 19(1) of the Education Act 1996 places a legal duty on every local authority (LA) to make arrangements for suitable education for children of compulsory school age who cannot receive suitable education, whether by reason of illness, exclusion, or 'otherwise'. The word 'otherwise' is deliberately broad and covers anxiety, EBSA (Emotionally Based School Avoidance), school phobia, unsafe environments, and any other barrier to attendance.

Is this duty absolute? Can the LA say they do not have funding?

Section 19 places a legal duty on Local Authorities to arrange suitable education for children of compulsory school age who are unable to access suitable education due to illness, exclusion, or otherwise. The duty should not be delayed or refused purely because of funding pressures, local policies, or difficulties securing a particular type of provision.

Where a child is not receiving suitable education and the Section 19 duty is engaged, the Local Authority remains responsible for arranging appropriate provision that is suitable for the child’s age, ability, aptitude, and any special educational needs they may have.

What kind of suitable education must the LA provide?
Under S19(6), education must be efficient and suitable to the child's age, ability, aptitude, and any special educational needs they have. It must be:

• Full-time by default (S19(3A)), unless full-time would harm the child's physical or mental health
•  Of good quality, equivalent to that provided in mainstream schools
•   Responsive to changing health status, with no inflexible policies or hard lists of conditions
•  Inclusive of the opportunity to take appropriate qualifications
•  Provision should be suitable and accessible for the child. This may include face-to-face education, online learning, or a combination of both, depending on the child’s needs and circumstances.

“Full-time education” is not defined in law, the guidance “Education for children with health needs who cannot attend school” says (page 9) that “children with health needs should have provision, where possible, which is equivalent to the education they would receive in a mainstream school.” If a child receives one-to-one tuition the hours could be fewer as the education may be more intensive.

Important: Part-time provision is only lawful where the LA actively considers and records that full-time would harm the child's health (S19(3AA)). It is not a default or starting point
 

2. WHO IS RESPONSIBLE: LA OR SCHOOL?

The LA told me the school holds the funding, so the school needs to find suitable education. Is this right?
No. The statutory duty under Section 19(1) belongs to the local authority, not the school. While schools may have a role in notifying the LA and supporting reintegration, they cannot be delegated the core legal responsibility for arranging alternative provision. The LA cannot transfer its duty to the school on the basis of where funding sits.

The LA said school have to apply for a 'medical request process'. Is this right?
No. There is no requirement in law for a school to make a formal referral before the LA's Section 19 duty is engaged. The duty is triggered by circumstances: the fact that a child of compulsory school age is not receiving suitable education, not by who submits a form. Parents are fully entitled to notify the LA directly and formally request that it fulfils its duty.

Watch Out: This is a common deflection tactic. LAs may attempt to create the impression that provision depends on a school referral. It does not. If the LA says this, put your challenge in writing.

3. WHO CAN REQUEST SECTION 19, AND DOES THE CHILD NEED TO BE ON ROLL?
 

Can children on roll at a school receive Section 19?
Section 19 applies regardless of whether the child is on a school roll. The duty is triggered by the fact that a child is not receiving suitable education. A child who is enrolled at school but cannot attend due to health needs, EBSA, anxiety, or 'otherwise' may engage the Section 19 duty

Must a child not be attending at all? My child is managing 2 days a week at reduced hours. Can I still request Section 19?
Yes. The question is not simply whether a child is physically present on school premises on some days, but whether they are receiving suitable education. If a child is only attending two days a week at reduced hours, particularly where their health needs, age, ability, and SEN are not being appropriately met. The Section 19 duty may still be engaged for the provision they are missing. Document attendance carefully and frame the request around whether the education being received is genuinely suitable.

Our daughter has been on a part-time timetable for over a year, missing approximately 2 lessons a day. Can we still request Section 19?
Yes, and this situation is worth challenging on two fronts. First, a part-time timetable lasting over a year with no review raises serious concerns under the statutory framework. Under S19(3AA), part-time provision is only lawful where full-time would harm the child's health, and that must be actively considered and recorded. Second, the LA has an ongoing duty to review provision. An absence of review for a year is itself a failure of process. Put your request in writing citing both the suitability of provision and the absence of any review.

4. EVIDENCE: WHAT IS NEEDED AND WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE?
 

What evidence do I need to request Section 19?
You do not need to provide exhaustive medical evidence to trigger the LA's duty, as the duty is triggered by circumstances, not by a specific evidence threshold. That said, having evidence helps. The following are all useful:
 

•   A letter from a GP confirming anxiety, EBSA, chronic fatigue, or other health needs. It does not need to be lengthy or diagnostic
•   Notes or letters from CAMHS, paediatrics, or mental health teams
•   Any statement from a professional that attending school is not currently possible
• A record from the school of interventions tried, what has and hasn't worked, and any adjustments or phased returns attempted
•  Attendance records showing significant absence, including where it is clear the child is likely to miss 15 days or more of education

Key point: Once a parent has provided evidence from a medical practitioner, the LA must not demand continuing evidence without good reason. The LA should also consider other sources where specific evidence is not available.

Do I need medical evidence? My child has EBSA and has not crossed the school threshold in over 2 years. Is that not enough?
EBSA (Emotionally Based School Avoidance) and anxiety can fall within the word ‘otherwise' in Section 19(1). The LA cannot lawfully refuse to act simply because a formal diagnosis is absent. Two years of non-attendance due to EBSA is itself significant evidence that suitable education is not being received. Document the position in writing, explain the reasons (EBSA and inability to cross the threshold), and formally notify the LA that its duty is engaged. A formal diagnosis is not required for Section 19 duties to potentially arise.

 I have provided a GP letter but the LA says it didn't contain the words 'unfit to attend school'. Can they require that specific wording?
No. There is no legal requirement for a GP letter to use any particular form of words. The statutory guidance does not specify required wording, and GPs are not legally able to certify a child as 'unfit to attend school' in the same way they might certify an adult for work. If a GP has confirmed health needs that affect the child's ability to attend, that is evidence which the LA must take into account. The Local Authority should not reject evidence solely because specific wording has not been used. Challenge this in writing and consider escalating.

 What evidence is accepted? I've been denied even though I've supplied so much?
If the LA is refusing to accept evidence that a child is not receiving suitable education, this is a serious concern. The LA's statutory guidance requires it to use medical and other evidence to understand need and identify provision. It should not set unreasonably high evidential thresholds. If you have provided GP letters, school records, and other professional evidence and the LA continues to refuse, this may indicate a failure to properly consider or fulfil their Section 19 duty.

 5. TIMELINES: HOW QUICKLY MUST THE LA ACT?
 

How long should it take to get alternative provision in place?
There is no single absolute legal deadline, but the framework is clear:
 

• As soon as it is clear a child will miss 15 or more days (consecutive or cumulative in the school year), the Local Authority should arrange suitable alternative provision
•   Provision should begin as soon as possible. In many cases, guidance states that suitable provision should be arranged by the sixth day of absence.
•   For planned absences (such as hospital stays), arrangements must be in place from Day 1

Note: The 15-day figure is the trigger point for the LA to act. It does not mean the LA can wait 15 days before making any enquiries. If it is clear early on that a child will miss 15 days or more, the LA should act without delay.

 How quickly should the LA respond to my initial request?
There is no statutory deadline for an initial response, but best practice, and what parents may wish to request , is a written response within 5 working days confirming: (a)whether the LA considers its Section 19 duty to be engaged ; (b) what provision it will arrange; and (c) the timeline for that provision to begin. Make this request explicitly in writing when you first contact the LA.
 

6. WHAT IF THE LA REFUSES OR DOES NOTHING?

What happens if Section 19 is refused by the LA?
A refusal is not necessarily the end of the matter. The Local Authority should explain its decision in writing and set out why it does not consider its Section 19 duty to be engaged.

If the circumstances suggest that your child is not receiving suitable education, you can challenge the decision using the escalation steps above. Keep copies of all correspondence, evidence, attendance records, and the refusal decision.

The LA says provision is available on the school site and refuses anything else. Is that lawful?

Not necessarily. Section 19 provision must be suitable for the individual child, taking account of their age, ability, aptitude, and any special educational needs.

If a child cannot access provision on the school site because of anxiety, EBSA, trauma connected to the setting, or other health-related barriers, provision based on that site may not be suitable. You should explain clearly in writing why the proposed provision cannot be accessed and provide any supporting evidence you have.

What if I have evidence of a breach of Section 19?

If you believe the Local Authority may have failed to properly fulfil its Section 19 duties, you may wish to:

1. Make a formal complaint to the Local Authority outlining the concerns, relevant dates, and supporting evidence
2. Complain to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO), who can investigate maladministration and recommend remedies such as apologies, service improvements, or financial redress
3. Seek independent legal advice, particularly where a child remains without suitable education for a prolonged period. In some cases, failures relating to Section 19 duties may be challenged through judicial review proceedings

 7. PROVISION: IS WHAT’S BEEN OFFERED ENOUGH?
Is there a certain number of hours of alternative provision the LA must provide?
Section 19 guidance states that full-time provision should usually be the starting point (S19(3A)). Part-time provision is only lawful where the LA has actively considered and recorded that full-time would harm the child's physical or mental health (S19(3AA)). 'Full-time' means the equivalent of full-time school attendance. Provision should be suitable to the child’s individual circumstances and should not be unreasonably limited without proper consideration of the child’s needs and health. If you are being offered fewer hours than this, ask the LA to explain in writing why full-time has been determined to be not in the child's best interests, and on what health evidence that decision is based.

Remember…“Full-time education” is not defined in law, the guidance “Education for children with health needs who cannot attend school” says (page 9) that “children with health needs should have provision, where possible, which is equivalent to the education they would receive in a mainstream school.” If a child receives one-to-one tuition the hours could be fewer as the education may be more intensive. 

What happens if my child can't actually access the Section 19 provision the LA has arranged?
Provision should be accessible and suitable for the child’s needs to be 'suitable' within the meaning of S19(6). If a child cannot access what has been arranged, for example because it is in an unsuitable environment, requires travel that the child cannot manage , or does not meet their specific health or SEN needs. This is relevant evidence that the provision is not suitable. Raise this in writing with the LA, document the specific barriers, and request that the provision is reviewed and adjusted.

How do I get the provision changed if it's unsuitable, and what about the LA not reviewing provision for over a year?
The LA has an ongoing duty to regularly review provision to ensure it remains appropriate. A lack of review over a prolonged period may indicate concerns about whether provision is being properly monitored and reviewed.

Write to the LA formally requesting:  

• A review of the current provision with reasons why it is not suitable (referencing the child's age, ability, aptitude, and SEN)
•   A clear record of why existing provision was considered suitable and what assessment process was followed
•   A timeline for revised provision to be put in place

If you have any further questions about Section 19 Education, please do not hesitate to contact us.