Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of reports of incidents that occurred in the school the complainant’s child attends. This is because there is not enough evidence the Council was at fault.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Miss X, complains about how the Council handled her complaints about incidents that occurred in her child’s school. She also complains about the content of her child’s Education, Health and Care Plan.
2. In addition, Miss X complains about the Council’s handling of her request under data protection legislation and how her complaints have been handled.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. 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))
4. The law says we cannot normally investigate a complaint when someone has a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal about the same matter. However, we may decide to investigate if we consider it would be unreasonable to expect the person to use this right. (Local Government Act 1974, section 26(6)(a), as amended)
5. 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

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

Back to top

My assessment

8. Miss X complained to the Council about incidents that occurred to her and her child at school. Miss X also complained to the school and to Ofsted about these incidents. Miss X wanted the incidents to be treated as safeguarding incidents. However, the school and subsequently the Council did not deem the incidents as safeguarding matters.
9. Miss X says that her child has not attended the school for 10 months due to not feeling safe. Following a review of the child’s Education, Health and Care (EHC) Plan, the same school was named as a suitable placement.
10. Miss X says the Council did not handle her subject access request correctly and complains about how the Council handled her complaint.
11. The evidence shows that the Council agreed with the school’s view in that the incidents did not constitute safeguarding concerns. The Council said it was reasonable that in such instances that the school investigate the concerns and provide any training or guidance as appropriate, based on findings. That was a decision for the Council to make, and there is not enough evidence of fault in the way the Council reached its view to warrant investigation by the Ombudsman.
12. Miss X believes it was unreasonable for the Council to name her child's current school on his EHC plan. She would like a different school to be named. This is not a matter on which we will express a view. It would have been reasonable for Miss X to use her right of appeal to the tribunal and we will not therefore investigate this part of the complaint.
13. It is not a good use of public resources to investigate complaints about complaint procedures, if we are unable to deal with the substantive issue. That is the case here.
14. It is open to Miss X to refer her concerns about the data protection matter to the Information Commissioner. There is no role for the Ombudsman.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Miss X’s complaint because there is not enough evidence of fault, and it would have been reasonable for to use her right to appeal to the Tribunal.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman