Local Government Ombudsman

> | Accessiblity Options | Text Only | Text Size: A+ A- Reset | Links | Site Map

You are here: Home : : Guidance on jurisdiction : : Examples : : Sch 5.5 Action taken within a school

Guidance for LGO staff

Browser support

Browse aloud

Click here for speech assisted browser support

Search the Guidance for LGO staff sections:

Note If you would like to search other sections of the website please use the search field at the top of the page.

Related Content

Examples: Action taken within a school

These examples would be OUTSIDE the Ombudsman's jurisdiction:

  • A complainant said that his child had been bullied in school and that the school had not dealt adequately with his complaint – OUT. (He should complain to the school, which should be able to provide him with a copy of its written complaints procedure. If the school fails to do so, he should then contact the LEA, which has a role in ensuring that schools’ complaints procedures operate effectively).
  • The head teacher gave a parent misleading information. If this is general information about the school, curriculum, discipline etc, it would be OUT, but if it was in connection with an application for admission; an exclusion appeal; availability of school transport; or a statement of Special Educational Needs then it may be in jurisdiction.
  • A teacher was rude to a parent/child.
  • The child was punished inappropriately (but not excluded).
  • The complainant’s daughter has an Individual Education Plan but the provision has not been made. She does not have a statement of Special Educational Needs.
  • The complainant’s exceedingly bright child has not been included in the school’s provision for gifted and talented children.
  • A complainant said that his child had not received suitable provision for his Special Educational Needs. During the first year he was at school, he had not been statemented and the complainant felt the school had delayed unreasonably in recommending to the LEA that a statement should be considered. OUT, including the alleged delay in referring the child for statementing. The parents had the right to approach the LEA themselves and did not need to wait for the school.

But these would be IN:

  • The council delayed in issuing a statement of Special Educational Needs.
  • The complainant says his son should have transport to his school which is unreasonably far from home.
  • The transport provided to my daughter’s school is unsuitable: children are allowed to misbehave on the bus and she is too frightened to use it.
  • The council did not allocate the complainant’s child to her preferred school and the appeal was mismanaged (we can look at the way the appeal was handled and at whether the council properly allocated school places).
  • The school has permanently excluded the complainant’s son and the appeal panel did not consider information which would have been in his favour. The council has not found him an alternative school place.
     

Date Published: 03/08/10