Summary: We have discontinued our investigations into Miss X’s complaints about a lack of education offered to her son, and about how she and her son were treated by the Council’s children’s social care service. The Council has already accepted fault for her son’s lack of education and has offered a suitable remedy. And there has already been an independent investigation into her social care complaint. It is unlikely further investigation of either issue would lead to different outcomes for her.

The complaint

1. Miss X complains that her son, Y, was without suitable, full-time education for 27 academic weeks between May 2024 and February 2025. She also complains about various ways in which the Council’s children’s social care service failed her and Y.

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 further investigation would not lead to a different outcome. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered evidence provided by Miss X and the Council as well as relevant guidance.
4. Miss X and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Education complaint

5. In May 2024, Miss X, who had been home-educating Y, decided she would no longer do so. She asked the Council to find education for him.
6. Despite its efforts, the Council was unable to find suitable education which could meet Y’s needs. This remained the situation – and Y remained without any education – until Miss X and her family moved out of the Council’s area in February 2025.

7. When Miss X complained about this, the Council accepted that it had failed to meet its duties to Y. By the date of its final complaint response Y had moved, so Miss X asked only for ‘compensation’. The Council offered her £2,000, “In accordance with the [Ombudsman’s] remedy guidance”.

8. Miss X initially accepted this offer. Then, three months later, she says she looked at our guidance and realised the Council could have offered her more. She approached us and asked her to consider her complaint.
9. Our guidance on remedies says we provide remedies for injustice, not compensation. When someone has suffered an injustice, we try to put them back in the position they would have been had the council not been at fault.
10. Our focus is on restoring services that have been denied, and on taking practical steps to put things right. Where that isn’t possible, we will try to think of creative remedies that acknowledge the impact of faults.
11. These remedies do sometimes take the form of payments. However, these are often modest amounts whose values are intended to be largely symbolic, rather than purely financial.
12. When a child (such as Y) has lost education because of something a council has done (or failed to do), we will usually recommend a remedy payment of between £900 and £2,400 per school term to acknowledge the impact of that loss. This covers the injustice caused to the child, as well as the normal range of consequential injustice also caused to the family, such as additional caring responsibilities that occur from a child being out of education, and avoidable disruption to daily routine.
13. It is not our role to award compensation, and we direct people to the courts where that is their primary goal.
14. In Y’s case, the Council has already accepted fault for its failure to deliver his education for around two school terms. And it has offered Miss X a financial remedy – £2,000 – which falls within the usual range suggested by our guidance.
15. Although I acknowledge that Miss X wants more money from the Council, and that such an increase would technically be possible under our guidance, that is not the point of our service. She does not need an investigation into her complaint, and the Council has already offered a proportionate – albeit symbolic – remedy.
16. With this in mind, I will discontinue my investigation.

Social care complaint

17. The statutory guidance, ‘Getting the best from complaints’, sets out a three-stage procedure for complaints about certain aspects of children’s social care. I refer to this as ‘the statutory procedure’.
18. Parents can use this procedure to complain about their children’s social care assessment and support.
19. If a complaint has already been through the statutory procedure, this means the complainant has already had access to an independent investigation.
20. We are not an appeal stage and do not simply add another independent investigation to the previous one as a matter of course. We will not normally re-investigate such a complaint unless we have reason to believe the previous investigation was flawed in a way which disadvantaged the complainant.
21. I have considered the documents from Miss X’s complaint, and I note that:
• All parts of the complaint were considered and addressed by the Council.
• The independent investigator had access to the Council’s records and referred to her consideration of those records where necessary.
• The investigator also interviewed staff members and clearly referred to those interviews in her consideration of the individual points of complaint.
• An independent panel reviewed the investigator’s findings and agreed with them in full.
• The remedies offered to Miss X by the Council adequately recognise its mistakes.
• Where the Council disagreed with recommendations by the independent panel, it clearly explained why, and its explanations were not unreasonable.
• Although Miss X disagrees with some of the findings of the Council, the independent investigator and the panel, I have not identified anything which obviously undermines those findings to the extent that they may be unreliable.
22. Because of this, it is unlikely I would be able to add anything significant to what the Council has already said. If I were to reinvestigate the complaint, it is also unlikely that this would lead to a substantially different outcome for Miss X. So I will not do so.

Back to top

Decision

23. I have discontinued my investigations.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman