Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council refusing to allow Ms X to home-school her child and taking child protection action. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant investigation. A legal bar prevents us investigating the actions of a school.

The complaint

1. Ms x said the Council was wrong to refuse to allow her to de-register her child from school and educate the child at home. She said the school reported her to social services.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We do not start or continue an investigation if we decide there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
4. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. At my request, the Council supplied a confidential copy of the referral it received about Ms X’s child and the record of the initial child protection conference (ICPC) that followed.
8. The record of the ICPC stated attendees unanimously decided the child needed to be subject to a child protection plan on the grounds of emotional neglect. It found Ms X had failed to provide medical or other evidence for what she claimed about her child despite repeated requests. It also stated what checks had been carried out to establish that. The concern was that Ms X was fabricating illness and the child was being deprived of social contact and education after a long period at home.
9. We cannot question a decision where it falls within the normal range of responses open to decision makers based on the available evidence. The evidence shows the Council was entitled to refuse Ms X’s request to educate her child at home and to take child protection action. That Ms X disagrees is not evidence of fault.
10. We are legally prevented from investigating the actions of the child’s school by the bar referred to in paragraph 4.

Back to top

Final decision

11. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council to warrant our further involvement.
12. We cannot investigate the actions of the child’s school as a legal bar prevents this.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman