Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about child safeguarding. Parts of the complaint fall outside our jurisdiction and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council mishandled a safeguarding report made about his child’s school. Mr X also complains the Council mishandled a safeguarding report made by his child’s school.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. The Local Government Act 1974 sets out our powers but also imposes restrictions on what we can investigate.
3. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)
4. We cannot investigate a complaint about the start of court action or what happened in court. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5/5A, paragraph 1/3, as amended).
5. 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))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Mr X has a child Y. Mr X complains the school responded too harshly following an incident with Y and made an unfair safeguarding referral. Mr X also complains the school started legal action against him.
9. We cannot investigate this part of Mr X’s complaint because we do not have jurisdiction to investigate complaints about what happens in schools. We are also unable to investigate complaints about the start of court action.
10. Mr X also complains about the way the Council handled the safeguarding referral made by the school.
11. The Council must consider all safeguarding referrals made to them it. Here they it considered the referral, found Y was not at risk and closed the case. I have seen insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to the safeguarding referral.
12. Mr X also complaints about the way the Council handled the safeguarding referral he made about Y’s school.
13. The Council considered the safeguarding referral made by Mr X and decided the allegations did not give rise to a safeguarding concern and were better addressed by the school’s complaint process which Mr X was already pursuing. I have seen insufficient evidence of fault in the way the Council responded to the safeguarding referral.
14. Following the incident Y stopped attending the school. Mr X complains the Council warned him of potential fines and later offered Y a place at an alternative school.
15. It is appropriate for parents to be warned about potential fines for children not attending school. Considering the breakdown in relationship between Mr X and the school, it was also appropriate for the Council to offer Y an alternative school placement. I have seen insufficient evidence of fault in the Council’s actions in warning Mr X of potential fines if Y was out of education and in offering an alternative education placement for Y. I note Y is now attending an alternative school.

Back to top

Final decision

16. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint. Parts of the complaint fall outside our jurisdiction and there is insufficient evidence of fault by the Council to justify investigating.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman