Summary: We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint about the Council’s decision against providing alternative provision for his child. There is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process, and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

The complaint

1. Mr X complained the Council failed to properly assess his child’s need for alternative education.
2. Mr X said this caused his child to fall behind peers educationally and interfered with their right to receive suitable education.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

3. We consider 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 cannot achieve the outcome someone wants.
  (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended, section 34(B))

4. We will not usually investigate complaint handling if we are not investigating the rest of the complaint. This is because there is not usually enough injustice to justify us doing so. We collect information about particularly poor complaint handling practice and report this back to organisations. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), section 34B(8))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered information provided by the complainant and the Council.
6. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

7. Mr X complained the Council did not consider the needs of his child when it decided against alternative provision. He said this went against medical advice and had a significant impact on their access to education.
8. Mr X said the Council was aware of the family circumstances and failed to properly consider them.
9. The Council’s response to Mr X’s complaint demonstrates it considered his child’s medical history and safeguarding concerns. It decided there was no medical evidence to suggest his child could not attend school. There was also no record of a safeguarding risk that would prevent attendance.
10. The response suggests the Council considered alternative provision. The child’s mother and Council officers did not deem it suitable for the child. Therefore, it secured a school place for this academic year.
11. The Council considered the medical history, safeguarding concerns, and education needs of Mr X’s child in making its decision. There is not enough evidence of fault in how it reached its decision.
12. Mr X applied for a school outside local authority control. The Council is not responsible for admissions to this school, and he should appeal against this decision separately.
13. The Council accepted its response to Mr X’s complaint was delayed and it apologised to him. We would not expect it to do more.
14. Our role is not to ask whether an organisation could have done things better, or whether we agree or disagree with what it did. Instead, we look at whether there was fault in how it made its decisions. If we decide there was no fault in how it did so, we cannot ask whether it should have made a particular decision or say it should have reached a different outcome.

Back to top

Final decision

15. We will not investigate Mr X’s complaint because is not enough evidence of fault in the Council’s decision-making process and we cannot achieve the outcome he wants.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman