Complicated - exclusion withdrawn but no education provided

[ancientantique]

Bit of a strange situation - child with a statement was permanently excluded. The parents planned to appeal this (for reasons related to disability) but the statement was quickly amended to name another school before the appeal hearing was held so the HT withdrew the exclusion. Shortly afterwards a 2 days a week transition plan was arranged but the child did not start on roll at the new school until almost 2 months later. Who was responsible for providing a full time education - the old school who had the child still on roll or the LA? It seems that although the exclusion was withdrawn it made no difference to the outcome i.e child was not able to return to school and no full time education was provided.
Would appreciate any thoughts on this.

If the exclusion was withdrawn, then the situation was:

On-roll at school A
2 days per week educated off-site (at school B).

If in fact there was no ability for the child to be in attendance at school A, then the situation was either:

Unofficial (illegal) exclusion from school A for 2 months
OR
2 days education at school B and 3 days failure to provide education by LA

In no way was school B responsible for education on the alternative days unless the plan was to enroll at school B but have authorised absence for 3 days per week.

Thanks Lougle- always find your advice helpful .
I think the child was still on roll at school A as there appear to be only a few reasons that you can remove a child from the roll including permanent exclusion/move to a new school but neither applied at the time. They did not supply any education however so presumably the LA should have.
A discrimination claim is being considered following the exclusion as although it was withdrawn their decision caused much distress.

Can you do a set of SARs to get the paper trail between LA-School A-School B? That will soon clear things up