Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision to cease home tuition for the complainant’s son. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant our intervention.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council was at fault in ceasing her son’s home tuition.

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 effect 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 an investigation if we decide the tests set out in our Assessment Code are not met. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by the complainant.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Mrs X says her son is unable to attend school. The correspondence she has provided shows that the Council makes alternative educational provision for him under section 19 of the Education Act 1996. She complains that in June 2024 the Council withdrew the section 19 provision without notice and against professional advice.
6. Mrs X says there were no grounds to remove the section 19 provision. Her son’s health had not improved to the extent that he could attend school, so home tuition remained appropriate. She says that, as a result of the Council’s actions, her son was left without provision for six months before home tuition was reinstated.
7. In response to Mrs X’s complaint, the Council accepts that it failed to properly communicate with her about the decision to cease the section 19 provision. However, it sets out that, in its view, the stage had been reached where Mrs X’s son could be reintegrated into school. That being the case, section 19 provision was no longer appropriate. It says that, when it became clear that reintegration was unsuccessful, section 19 provision was reinstated. But it does not accept that it was at fault in removing it initially.
8. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint. It is not for us to express a view on whether the section 19 duty was engaged, or whether it was appropriate to cease it. These are decisions for the Council. Mrs X does not agree that it was appropriate to attempt to reintegrate her son into school. But that does not mean the decision to do so amounts to fault. It was the Council’s decision to make, and without evidence of fault in the way in which it did so, the Ombudsman cannot criticise the decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view.
9. The Council has apologised for fault in how it communicated, and the Ombudsman would not seek to achieve anything further. Our intervention is not therefore warranted.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman