Halton Borough Council (19 001 935)
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: Miss X complains about how the Council operates its policy of fining parents who take their children out of school during term time without the school’s permission. The Ombudsman will not investigate her complaint. This is because there is no evidence of fault by the Council which has caused Miss X personal injustice.
The complaint
- Miss X complains about how the Council operates its policy of fining parents who take their children out of school during term time without the school’s permission. Miss X has previously been fined for doing this. But she says an Education Welfare Officer from the Council got married during term time. The wedding was abroad and the Education Welfare Officer knew children would be present. Miss X suggests the Council should limit when its staff can take holidays.
The Ombudsman’s role and powers
- We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word ‘fault’ to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. We provide a free service, but must use public money carefully. We may decide not to start or continue with an investigation if we believe:
- it is unlikely we would find fault, or
- the fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
- there is another body better placed to consider this complaint. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6), as amended)
How I considered this complaint
- I considered Miss X’s complaint to the Ombudsman and the information she provided. I also gave Miss X the opportunity to comment on a draft statement before reaching a final decision on her complaint.
What I found
- The procedure for a Council to enforce against non-attendance at school is for it to issue a penalty notice. If a parent accepts the penalty and pays it, the Council need take no further action. If the parent disputes the penalty by not paying it, the Council must prosecute the offence in the magistrates’ court. Only the Court can consider any evidence put forward in defence and then decide whether the parent committed the offence. The Ombudsman can do neither. (Education Act 1996, sections 444 and 444A)
- The Council has previously fined Miss X for taking her children out of school during term time. If Miss X believed the penalty charges the Council issued her with were not justified, or had not been correctly issued, she could have put forward an argument in court. Miss X chose not to do this and paid the fines. The Court was in the best place to decide the merits of the opposing arguments, as the law provides.
- Miss X is unhappy because she says an Education Welfare Officer from the Council “planned her wedding abroad during term time, with the full expectation of school aged children to be in attendance, which they were!”. But the Education Welfare Officer was not acting as a council employee – so her actions are not something we can consider. Miss X suggests the Council should restrict when its employees can take holidays – but this is a matter for the Council. There is also no link between the actions of the Education Welfare Officer and the Council’s previous decisions to fine Miss X. There is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which has caused Miss X personal injustice to warrant an investigation by the Ombudsman.
Final decision
- The Ombudsman will not investigate Miss X’s complaint. This is because there is not enough evidence of fault by the Council which has caused Miss X personal injustice.
Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman