Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about how the Council dealt with a referral which raised concerns about a child’s education, and that it subsequently committed a data breach. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault I how it dealt with the referral and breaches of data protection regulations are matters better considered by the Information Commissioner's Office.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I will call Ms X, complains about the Council’s decision to carry out safeguarding enquires after it received a referral raising concerns about the education of her son. Ms X also complains that the Elective Home Education Team concluded that her son’s education provision was unsuitable, and breached GDPR by sharing this with the team investigating the safeguarding concerns.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints of injustice caused by ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. I have used the word fault to refer to these. We consider whether there was fault in the way an organisation made its decision. If there was no fault in the decision making, we cannot question the outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. We normally expect someone to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner if they have a complaint about data protection. However, we may decide to investigate if we think there are good reasons. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Parents have a right to educate their children at home. Councils do not regulate home education, but the law does require councils to make enquiries about what education is being provided when a child is not attending school full-time.
7. The Council received a referral raising concerns about the education that Ms X’s son was receiving at home. It therefore started safeguarding enquiries. Ms X provided the Elective Home Education Team with a report which detailed the education her son was receiving. The report was reviewed by an officer who concluded that they had concerns about the level of education her son was receiving. The officer shared these concerns with the team who were making the safeguarding enquiries.
8. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Council starting safeguarding enquiries. Ms X says home education is not a safeguarding matter and therefore the Council should have closed the referral. However, guidance from Department for Education makes it clear that Councils do have a duty to consider using their safeguarding powers and duties to protect a child’s suitable education. Therefore, there is no evidence of fault with the Council for making safeguarding enquiries into Ms X’s son’s education provision.
9. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint about the Elective Home Education Teams conclusions about the suitability of her son’s education. An officer reviewed the report and concluded there were gaps in her son’s provision. Ms X may strongly disagree with this conclusion, but it was made by an officer using their professional judgement and we cannot question the merits of their decision in the absence of fault.
10. I will not investigate Ms X’s complaint that the Council committed a data breach when these concerns were shared with the team carrying out the safeguarding enquiries. This is because complaints about breaches of data protection are better considered by the Information Commissioner's Office.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman