Summary: there is no evidence of fault in Manchester City Council’s handling of its concerns about the suitability of the home education Ms D was providing to her daughter. As there is no evidence to corroborate Ms D’s account of the actions of a Council officer in July 2019 and it contradicts the officer’s record, this complaint is not upheld.

The complaint

1. The complainant, whom I shall refer to as Ms D, says Manchester City Council is at fault in that:

1. it unreasonably decided that home education was not suitable for her daughter, X, in December 2019; and
2. the officer who visited Ms D in July 2019 was rude, unprofessional and verbally aggressive.

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 cannot question whether a council’s decision is right or wrong simply because the complainant disagrees with it. We must consider whether there was fault in the way the decision was reached. (Local Government Act 1974, section 34(3), as amended)
3. If we are satisfied with a council’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered the written information Ms D provided with her complaint and gave her the opportunity to speak to me about it though she did not do so. I made written enquiries of the Council and considered all the information before reaching a draft decision on the complaint.
5. Ms D and the Council had an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I considered any comments received before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

What should have happened

6. Parents have a right to educate their children at home (Section 7, Education Act 1996). The Department for Education has issued statutory guidance for councils on implementing the law on elective home education.
7. Councils do not regulate home education. However, the law requires councils to make enquiries about what education is being provided when a child is not attending school full-time. Councils should have a policy on elective home education setting out how it will engage and communicate with parents. The Department for Education recommends each council provides parents with a named contact who is familiar with home education policy and practice and makes contact with home educating parents on at least an annual basis to consider the suitability of the education provided. It also recommends that councils work cooperatively with other agencies such as health services to identify and support children who are being home educated.
8. There are no specific legal requirements for the content of home education – it does not need to include particular subjects, follow the National Curriculum or culminate in examinations.
9. Councils can ask parents for detailed information about the education they are providing, though parents are under no duty to respond to such informal enquiries. The guidance says that where a parent doesn’t provide such information, it will normally be justifiable for the council to decide the child is not receiving suitable education and it should take further action.
10. Councils can serve a notice in writing on the parents requiring them to satisfy the council the child is receiving suitable education. The parents must be given at least 15 days from the date of the notice to respond.
11. If the parents do not respond to the notice (or the response does not satisfy the council that the education is suitable) and the council’s view is the child should attend school, the council should serve a school attendance order (s437(3) Education Act 1996). This will name a school which the child must be registered at. If the named school is an academy, the council will need to seek the school’s agreement to being named on the order.
12. Paragraph 6.10 of the statutory guidance says that where councils are “considering whether they should serve a notice in a specific case should note that current case law means that a refusal by parents to provide any information in response to informal enquiries will in most cases mean that the authority has a duty to serve a notice under s.437(1). This is because where no other information suggests that the child is being suitably educated, and where the parents have refused to answer, the only conclusion which an authority can reasonably come to, if it has no information about the home education provision being made, is that the home education does not appear to be suitable”.
13. The Council has a policy and procedures on elective home education. This confirms that in circumstances where the Council decides that a child is not being provided with a suitable education it will “…identify suitable provision for the child through our Child Missing Education procedures…the expectation is that children will return to their former school…”. It goes on to say that “… if the parent fails to register the child at the school which has been offered, they may receive formal notice that a school attendance order will be served. This step will only be taken if all reasonable steps have been taken to resolve the situation…there should be no significant period in which a child is not receiving a suitable education…”.
14. The Council’s complaints procedure comprises an informal stage where the Council will try to resolve the matter being complained about. If it is not resolved to the service user’s satisfaction the Council will then move the complaint on to stage 1 of the formal procedure whereby a senior officer in the department being complained about will provide a response. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the response at stage 1 they can then escalate their complaint to stage 2 of the process where a member of the Council’s complaints team will investigate and provide a response usually within 10 days.

What happened

Background

15. Ms D decided to withdraw her daughter from school in June 2019 and to educate her at home instead. She wrote to X’s school to tell them this in late June 2019. The Council confirms the school made a referral to the council’s Elective Home Education team in early July and shortly after an officer from that team (Officer B) contacted Ms D and they agreed that Officer B would visit Ms D and X at home around mid-July.

The Council’s actions in relation to home education

16. The Council says that Officer B conducted this home visit as agreed and that during the visit Ms D told Officer B that she had plans on how she would be educating X but had not yet had a chance to put these plans in place. The Council says that Officer B agreed to visit again after Ms D had begun to implement her plans and that the officer was satisfied that home education was appropriate but that a further visit would be needed to ensure that Ms D’s plans for X’s education were being implemented. The Council says it has adopted this process to give parents the opportunity to implement plans for home education particularly when parents are new to home education.
17. Officer B’s notes of the home visit state that Ms D described the difficulties that X had at school which led to her withdrawing her. It notes the ideas that Ms B had about what she would be teaching and doing with X to educate her but describes Ms B of having no clear plan on how tis would be put into action. It notes that Ms D became unhappy with Officer D said she intended returning in September to check the clearer plan for X’s education. It describes a difficult end to the meeting as a result of Ms D becoming angry and upset with Officer B. The notes show that Officer B telephoned Ms D after the visit to confirm that the plan was for her to visit again in September. The notes record that the call ended as Ms B began to shout at officer B.
18. Around mid-September Officer B wrote to Ms D to arrange a visit for early October to discuss the arrangements and progress on X’s home tuition. Ms D refused this appointment as she said she was dissatisfied with Officer B and had complained about her conduct at the previous home visit.
19. In December Officer B wrote to Ms D again asking her to provide information on how she was home educating X and asking her to provide this by a deadline in mid-December.
20. Shortly before the December deadline Ms D said she would not provide any information regarding X’s home education until she received a response to her complaint about Officer B.
21. Officer B then made a decision that elective home education was not suitable as no information had been provided on how and what education X was receiving. Officer B wrote to Ms D stating “Parents are required to ensure that a child receives full time education. Since I have grounds to believe that the education being provided is unsuitable, I will now be registering X as a child missing education. I will now pass this information on to the Admissions Team who will send you further information about school places. If you do not make alternative arrangements to provide X with an efficient full time education a referral will be made to the Local Authority who may issue a School Attendance Order under section 437(1) of the Education Act 1996 which will force your child to attend a school. If a parent /carer fails to comply with a School Attendance Order s/he can be prosecuted before a Magistrates’ Court and can be fined up to £1000”. She said that she would be advising the Council’s school admissions team who would contact Ms B with a view to identifying a school place for X.
22. Officer F (from the Council’s school admissions team) visited Ms D at home in mid-December to complete paperwork to arrange X’s admission to school. Ms D did not wish to complete this as she said she was still waiting for a response to her complaint about Officer B so Officer F referred the matter back to Officer’s B’s manager for a decision on what to do next.

Ms D’s complaints to the Council and the Council’s responses

23. The Council says that around mid-August Ms D contacted the Council twice to complain about Officer B’s conduct during the home visit in July stating Officer B had been late, was rude, had a “pro-school” agenda and had “interrogated” X.
24. The Council provided its response to the complaints within a week upholding the complaint that Officer B had arrived late though said the reason for this was that she got held up in traffic and she apologised to Ms D about this at the time. The Council did not uphold the other elements of the complaint: in its response the Council provided Officer B’s version of what happened at the home visit in July and this did not accord with Ms D’s allegations that Officer B was rude, pro-school or that she had interrogated X. This response was provided by an officer in the Education Casework Team.
25. In September Ms D wrote to the Council expressing her dissatisfaction with the response to her complaint detailing what she considered was inaccurate information in the response. In its comments to me the Council says the Stage 1 response had stated that “…it hadn’t been possible to make any finding on the issues raised, therefore, no further investigation could take place due to the lack of witnesses on what had occurred during…home visit”. The Council says that Ms D’s email was passed to a manager in the education service so that she could discuss it with officer B. The Council says that Ms D was advised this is what had happened.
26. In mid-January 2020 Ms D sent a further complaint. I have not seen a copy of this further complaint.
27. In early February the Council provided its response to Ms D’s further complaint stating this was a response at stage 1 of the complaints procedure. I note this response refers to a complaint Ms D submitted on 14 December. I have not seen a copy of this December complaint. However, the Council’s response outlines what Ms D's further complaint was and provides a response to this. The complaint appears to have been:
• Officer B was threatening and harassing Ms D;
• Officer B originally said elective home education was not suitable in retaliation for Ms D alleging Officer B had manipulated X;
• Officer B was threatening to take court action against Ms D;
• The Council’s action amounted to racial discrimination and a hate crime;
• The Council was failing to protect the interests of children or families home schooling.
28. The Council’s response was broadly to reiterate the Council’s action in relation to Ms D’s home education of X and to make clear its responsibilities in relation to this. It considered but did not agree with the complaints that related to Ms D’s allegations regarding Officer B’s manipulation of X and decision on suitability of home education and found no evidence of racial discrimination or a hate crime.
29. In response Ms D asked for her complaint to be considered at stage 2 of the complaints procedure.
30. The stage 2 was investigated by a complaints officer who is independent of the service complained about, and the response was sent to Ms D at the end of February.
31. The response at stage 2 essentially reiterates the response at stage 1 in accepting that Officer B was late for the appointment in July 2019 and apologising for this but goes on to say that in the absence of any independent corroboration of what happened at or during the home visit no conclusion on the behaviours Ms D alleged can be reached.

Is the Council at fault and did this cause injustice?

32. As a general point, it is important to be clear that the actions the Council is required to take to ensure that a child is being provided with suitable education are separate to the complaints process. Ms D effectively combined the two during the early part of 2020 stating she would not respond to the Council’s enquiries about the education provision until her complaint was responded to.
33. I do not consider the evidence supports Ms D’s contention that the Council unreasonably decided that home education was not suitable for X in December 2019. This is a decision for the Council to make and it is not for me to reach a decision as to whether the decision was the right one. My role is to consider whether the Council followed the correct process and considered the matter properly. The Council attempted to obtain information about the way in which Ms D intended providing X with a suitable education. After the first home visit in July, Ms D was consistently refused to engage with the Council about this. As its process allows, and in line with the law, the Council decided in December that it had no grounds to believe that Ms D had made proper arrangements to ensure that X was provided with a suitable education and wrote to her in December 2019 to state that this was its decision and so she should arrange a school place for X and that if she did not the Council may have served Ms D with a school attendance order.
34. Ms D complained to the Council about the behaviour of the Officer B in July shortly after the home visit. There is no way for me to reach a clear decision on what happened in that meeting given the two accounts of it are so different and no evidence has been provided by an independent third party who witnessed the meeting. The Council upheld Ms D’s complaint that the officer was late and apologised for this but at the end of the process clearly said that it could not reach a decision on the allegations of rudeness, lack of professionalism and verbal aggression due to the absence of any independent witness to the meeting. I cannot therefore reach a decision on fault in relation to part b) of the complaint. I note that in her complaint to this office Ms D said that she has a signed statement written by her neighbour which supports her account of the officer’s behaviour. However, there is no suggestion that the she provided this to the Council, she has not provided it to me and, in any event, there could be concerns about the reliability of such an account seemingly obtained sometime after the event: if it had been available at the time I would consider it should have been provided to the Council then.
35. I have outlined the Council’s handling of Ms D’s complaint as it demonstrates that the Council investigated the matters she complained to this office about in relation to Officer B being rude, unprofessional and verbally aggressive towards her. Ms X has not specifically complained about the handling of her complaint however, so I have not specifically addressed this.

Back to top

Final decision

36. There is no evidence of fault in Manchester City Council’s handling of its concerns about the suitability of home education Ms D was providing to her daughter. In the absence of clear evidence I have no grounds to reach a decision of fault in relation to Ms D’s complaint about the conduct of the Council officer in July 2019 for the reasons given in paragraph 34 above.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman