Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s decision not to provide alternative education as it is unlikely we would find fault in its decision.

The complaint

1. Mr X complains the Council failed to provide alternative education when his child was unable to attend school. Mr X is also unhappy the Council allocated a school place without conducting a suitability assessment.

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:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants, or
• there is no worthwhile outcome achievable by our investigation.

(Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

3. We cannot investigate most complaints about what happens in schools. (Local Government Act 1974, Schedule 5, paragraph 5(2), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

4. I considered information provided by the complainant which included the Council’s reply to his complaint.
5. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

6. Section 19 of the Education Act 1996 says that the Council must arrange suitable alternative educational provision when it finds that a child is unable to attend school because of a permanent exclusion, an illness, or for any other reason which makes the school inaccessible to the child. The alternative educational provision must be suitable to the child’s age, ability and aptitude, and any special educational needs they have.
7. The Courts decided in (R(R) v Kent County Council [2007] EWHC 2135 (Admin)), the test for whether a section 19 duty is owed is whether the education offered was “reasonably available and accessible” to the child, despite the parents’ objections.
8. The Council has found a school place that it considers suitable for the child. The child does not have an Education, health and Care (EHC) Plan that says the child should attend a particular type of school to meet his needs e.g. a special school, therefore a mainstream school is suitable.
9. Mr X is unhappy his child was not allocated a place at his preferred school. Mr X was provided with his right to appeal this decision if he was unhappy with it.
10. In this case the Council has demonstrated it considered the relevant facts and events. The Ombudsman is not an appeal body. This means we do not take a second look at a decision to decide if it was wrong. Instead, we look at the processes an organisation followed to make its decision. If we consider it followed those processes correctly, we cannot question whether the decision was right or wrong, regardless of whether the complainant disagrees with the decision the organisation made.
11. I have considered the steps the Council took to consider if it owed a section 19 duty and how it responded to Mr X’s school admission requests. It is unlikely we would find fault in how it took the decisions and therefore we could not question whether its decisions were right or wrong.

Back to top

Final decision

12. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because we are unlikely to find fault in the Council’s decision not to provide alternative education provision.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman