Summary: We will not investigate this complaint that the Council has failed to make alternative educational provision for the complainant’s son while he cannot attend school. This is because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part to warrant investigation.

The complaint

1. The complainant, Mrs X, complains that the Council has failed in its duty to make alternative educational provision for her son, who cannot attend school for medical reasons.

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 cannot attend school due to anxiety. She contends that the Council’s duty set out in section 19 of the Education Act 1996 is engaged, and that it must make alternative provision for him. She complains that it has not done so and that, as a result, she has had to arrange and pay for online provision.
6. Mrs X says that, in refusing to accept the section 19 duty, the Council has disregarded professional advice, and has unreasonably changed the recording of her son’s absence from school to show it as unauthorised. She wants the Council to accept its section 19 duty, make appropriate provision for her son, and reimburse the costs she has incurred.
7. The Ombudsman will not investigate Mrs X’s complaint because there is insufficient evidence of fault on the Council’s part. It is not for us to take a view on whether the section 19 duty is engaged. That is a matter for the Council. The question for us is whether there is evidence of fault in the way the Council has considered the matter and reached a view. There is no such evidence.
8. In response to the complaint the Council has set out that Mrs X’s son is on roll at the school named in his Education Health and Care plan and that the school can make appropriate arrangements for his education. It says that, in its view, the medical evidence provided does not show that alternative provision is required. As such, it does not accept that it has a duty to make alternative provision.
9. Mrs X disagrees with the Council’s position. But that does not mean it amounts to fault. The Council’s decision is cogent and defensible and there is no indication of fault in the way it was made. That being the case, it is not for the Ombudsman to criticise the decision or intervene to substitute an alternative view.

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